http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/prostar.com/viol021.dir/whtpapr.txt

		   White Paper on State Citizenship
		     T. Collins -- 10/04/94


			   Introduction

   I was born a first class citizen. I entered into contracts
that, without my knowledge, made me a second class citizen. I am
working on the legal process of restoring my first class
citizenship status.

   I was surprised to find that the United States government
recognized two distinct classes of citizens, let alone that my
citizenship status had changed. At first I did not believe it. It
was not until I learned how to use the law library in the county
court house that I was able to confirm my status. I am not an
attorney so this paper should not be considered as legal advice.
It may be used for the basis of your own research. This paper
does not have a copyright, so you can copy all or part of it.
This paper borrows research from other papers without copyrights
written by people across the nation. I will describe the big
picture first, then I will substantiate the claims made and give
a more detailed picture later.

   You may find the ideas presented here conflict with the model
of government that you have been taught. You may also find these
ideas impossible to believe. This is understandable. The further
you read, the more you may change the way you filter information
about what the government is doing. If you cannot believe any of
this, please set this paper aside. Sometime in the future, you
may come back to this paper and it may make more sense. I believe
that the concepts described here are true. But, you should not!
If you accepted the ideas in this paper without confirming them
from other sources, then you are a fool! If I can change your
model of reality in one paper then someone else might be able to
fill your head with nonsense. Please be skeptical. Even if you do
not agree with the central premise, you may agree with some of
the research. If so, you will still get something out of this
paper. There are many Citizens doing research on the topics
described in this paper. Some will sell the results of their
research while others will practically give it away. This paper
does not discuss some of the more advanced topics (Citizen
militia, commercial liens, common law liens, common law trusts).
At the end of this paper, I will supply you with the names of
books, magazines, newspapers, computer bulletin boards that fill
in some of the details that I have excluded.

   The big picture

   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 someones 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 but I am not one of them. The sovereigns own
their land in "allodium." That is, the government does
not have a financial interest in the 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 will not
have to get a Health Security Card. They can own any kind of gun
without a license or permit. They do not have to use the same
court system that normal people do. I am sure that most people
reading this are saying to themselves that this can not 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 can not 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 in one of the several states, the Pennsylvania
Commonwealth, 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 PA, 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?

   If you have a Social Security Number (SSN), you are not a
state Citizen. In the near future, I will send papers into the
District of Columbia stating that I am recinding my application
for a SSN. If I had known that applying for a SSN would affect my
citizenship status, I would not have applied. I found out that
Social Security is voluntary and that I can work without a SSN.

   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 I accept mail sent to PA, I am saying that I
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.


   I find the most offensive trick to get me to lose my
sovereignty was that if I do not protest using the only legal
tender in America, the Federal Reserve Notes (FRN), also know as
U.S. Dollars, I am receiving a benefit. This is a complicated
trick that I will explain in detail later.

   Of course there are many other benefits that many people use
that the sovereigns cannot. Among these are Social Security
checks, welfare checks, food stamps, federally insured bank
accounts, Medicaid, Medicare, and sending children to publicly
funded schools.

   I am not trying to get everybody to give up government
benefits. If you wish to support and be supported by the federal
government, much like people in other countries do, then by all
means, go ahead and do so. But, if you wish to be a sovereign
protected by the Bill of Rights and not pay many of the taxes
that you are paying now but also not receive benefits, then there
is an alternative. It is not an easy alternative. The law makers
want control over you. They have made the legal system complex.
It takes years for attorneys to learn the language and procedures
of our legal system. Fortunately you do not need to know
everything an attorney needs to know. You do need to have a basic
understanding of how our legal system works. You may be surprised
that it bears little resemblance to television courtroom dramas.

   I also must warn you that reclaiming your state Citizenship
status may have negative effects on your life. Besides the lack
of benefits, such as unemployment checks, you are treated more
harshly if you get convicted of a common law crime if you are a
state Citizen. If you get convicted of rape and you are a federal
citizen, you may get five years in an air conditioned prison with
cable TV and three meals a day. If a state Citizen gets
convicted, by a common law jury, of rape, he could be put to
death.

   All of the information describing how the United States really
works and how it is supposed to work was so spread out that few
people could see the big picture. The communication revolution
has changed this. Computer bulletin boards across the country
provided a means to share research. Tax protesters, ranchers,
religious people, historians, gun owners, and others have all
found pieces of the puzzle. Perhaps there are more pieces to
find.

   These researchers started on different legal threads. They
followed and untangled the threads until they reached the source;
The Constitution for the United States of America. The surprising
thing is that the researchers did not know about each other but
they each came to similar conclusions. Some of the minor details
are being debated by researchers. The overall conclusions are
described in this paper. Some of their research is not described
here. The longer this paper is, the more unlikely it is that
people unfamiliar with this subject will even attempt to read it.


   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 can not 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.
Let's describe each of these steps in detail.

   Reasons I believe this

   To show that Congress has made the laws unreadable by the
average person, an objective method of measuring the readability
of English text must be discussed. English scholars use a scale
known as the "Flesch Index" that measures the level of
understanding necessary for an individual to comprehend the
written English language. Newspapers are written at an average
comprehension level of 7. The average high school graduate reads
and understands at a level of 10. The average law school graduate
reads and comprehends at a level of 15. The Internal Revenue Code
ranks on this index at an average level of 31, with some specific
provisions as high as 55. And the words that are used in the law
have specific legal definitions that are different from the
common English definitions. If the laws that we are supposed to
obey are written at a level that an individual of reasonable
intelligence cannot understand then perhaps we should be highly
suspect of the law writer's motives. My word processor's grammar
checker tells me that this paper is written at level 11.5. People
in this country cannot understand at this level. How many people
have the time, energy, and ability to go into a law library and
piece this together? By making the law so difficult to read,
Congress has effectively removed our access to it.

   To show how the government uses common English words in such a
way that they have meanings that are different from what you
might think, I will show how the word 'state' is redefined. In
the IRS code, it says you are subject to the income tax if you
live in: one of the states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Quam, or the northern Marranara Islands. From this
definition it sounds as if I need to pay income tax. But, if you
look at how the IRS defines the word state you probably will be
confused. In the definition of the word state, it uses the word
state. If you check this definition in years back you will see it
has been modified several times. Before Alaska was admitted into
the Union, it was in this list of states. After it became one of
the states of the Union, it was not listed in the IRS definition
of a state. The same thing happened to Hawaii. What does this
mean? The definition that is used in the IRS code for the word
state, is not a state like Texas but a state like Quam, that is a
federal territory. The Federal Zone is a book listed in the other
source's section of this paper describes this and other words
that have specific legal definitions that are, sometimes, the
opposite of the common definition.

   So far I have stated some unconventional ideas. To
substantiate them I will cite standing decisions made by the
courts and statutes passed by Congress. Unless the decision or
statute is in quotation marks, it has been paraphrased. Please
look up the decision or statutes to verify my paraphrase. At the
end of this paper, I will give the names of books and
publications that give more information on the subject. One of
the books will teach you how to find and understand the law.

   "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.

   The origin of the federal citizen

   So far I have not given any proof that the government actually
recognizes two distinct classes of citizens. I will give that
evidence now by describing the 13th and 14th Amendments.

   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." Citing 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.

   There are many reasons why I do not like the 14th Amendment.
The first is that is was never ratified!

   "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. (The court in this case was
the 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."

   There is a wealth of deception in the above wording, because
of sheer number of words that have specific or multiple meanings
in law depending upon how they are used.

   Go the part "and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof." The word the is used in a singular form, not the
plural, as is the word jurisdiction. If Congress meant the
several States, rather that the District of Columbia, it would
have been more correct to say "and subject to their
jurisdictions."

   In addition, a new pecking order is established with the
phrase. "are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside."

   If you research the terms "resident" and "legal
residence", you find that it is the nexus that binds us all
to the State and federal enforcement of commercial law statutes
today. "Resident" is the short form of "Resident
Alien" and is used in State statutes to mean someone who
exhibits actual presence in an area belonging to one nation while
retaining a domicile/citizenship status within another foreign
nation [The United States/District of Columbia]. The term
"legal residence" further indicates that these two
terms may be applied either to a geographical jurisdiction, or, a
political jurisdiction. An individual may reside in one or the
other, or in both at the same time. In California, Government
Code, section 126, sets forth the essential elements of a compact
between this State and the federal government allowing reciprocal
taxation of certain entities, and provide for concurrent
jurisdiction within geographical boundaries.

   Both state Citizens and federal citizens are Americans. US
citizens are "domiciled" in the District of Columbia
and are privileged alien to the state wherein the reside and
state Citizens are domiciled in their state and not aliens in
their state. They also do not reside in their state; they are
Citizens of the state. The distinction may seem insignificant to
you but it is not to the court. A state Citizen has the right to
travel in each of the 50 states. He/she can file papers at any
county courthouse in any state and become a Citizen of that
state.

   Most of the federal statute laws do not apply to Citizens of a
state. If the authority for the statute can be found in the
organic Constitution, then the statute is of a National
character, as it applies to both state Citizens and aliens.

   "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). What could this mean? Well, it 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."

   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 abridgment 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. Louisianna, 194 U.S. 258.

   The privileges and immunities [civil rights] of the 14th
Amendment citizens were derived [taken] from....the Constitution,
but are not identical to those referred to in Article IV, sect. 2
of the Constitution [which recognizes the existence of state
Citizens who were not citizens of the United States because there
was no such animal in 1787]. Plainly spoken, RIGHTS considered to
be grants from our creator are clearly different from the
"civil rights" that were granted by Congress to its own
brand of franchised citizen in the 14th Amendment.

   "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."

   In summary, what we are talking about here is a Master-Servant
relationship. Prior to the 14th Amendment, there were state
Citizens and non-citizens. State Citizens were the masters in the
relationship to government. After the 14th Amendment was declared
to be passed, a new class of citizenship was created, which is
both privileged and servant [subject] to the creator [the federal
government].

   How state Citizens were converted into federal citizens

   In order for the federal government to tax a Citizen of one of
the several states, it had to create some sort of contractual
nexus. This contractual nexus is the Social Security Number
(SSN).

   In 1935, the federal government instituted Social Security.
The Social Security Board then created 10 Social Security
"Districts." The combination of these
"Districts" resulted in a "Federal Area", a
fictional jurisdiction, which covered all of the several states
like a clear plastic overlay.

   In 1939, the federal government instituted the "Public
Salary Tax Act of 1939." This Act is a municipal law of the
District of Columbia for taxing all federal government employees
and those who live and work in any "Federal Area." Now
the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live
and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1,
Section 8, Clause 2 in the Constitution for the United States of
America; also known as the ten square miles of the District of
Columbia and territories and enclaves. So, in 1940, Congress
passed the "Buck Act" now found in 4 U.S.C. Sections
105-113. In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of
the federal government to create a "Federal Area" for
imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939." This
tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C. Section 111. The rest of the taxing
law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security
Board had already created a "Federal Area" overlay.
U.S.C. Title 4 is as follows:

   Sec. 110(d): The term "State" includes any territory
or possession of the United States.

   Sec. 110(e): The term "Federal Area" means any lands
or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United
states or any department, establishment, or agency of the United
states; and any federal area, or any part thereof, which is
located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be
deemed to be a federal area located within such State.

   Under the Provisions of Title 4, Section 105, the federal
"State" (also known as, "The State of...") is
imposing an excise tax. That section states, in pertinent part:

   Sec. 105: State, and so forth, taxation affecting Federal
areas; sales or use tax.

   (a) No person shall be relieved from the liability for payment
of, collection of, or accounting for any sales or use tax levied
by any State, or any duly constituted taxing authority therein,
having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on the ground that the
sales or use, with respect to which such tax is levied, occurred
in whole or in part within a Federal area; and such State or
taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction to levy such a tax,
by reason of his residing within a Federal area or receiving
income from transactions occurring or services performed in such
area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full
jurisdiction and power to levy and collect such tax in any
Federal area within such a State to the same extent and with the
same effect as though such area was not a Federal area.

   NOTE: Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose
is to produce revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax
under the Buck Act [4 U.S.C. Secs. 105-110]. See Humble Oil &
Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971), affd (Tex) 478 SW
2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed. 2d 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.

   For purposes of further explanation, a Federal area can
include the Social Security areas designated by the Social
Security Administration; any public housing that has federal
funding; a home that has a federal (or Federal reserve) loan; a
road that has federal funding; schools and colleges (public or
private) that receive (direct or indirectly) federal funding, and
virtually everything that the federal government touches through
any type of direct or indirect aid. See Springfield v. Kenny, 104
N.E. 2d. 65 (1951 app.) This "Federal area" is attached
to anyone who has a Social Security number or any personal
contact with the federal or State government. (That is, of
course, with the exception of those who have been defrauded
through the tenets of an Unrevealed Contract to
"accept" compelled benefits. Which includes me and
perhaps you.) Through this mechanism, the federal government
usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty
of the several states by creating "Federal areas"
within the authority of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 in the
Constitution for the United States of America which states:

   "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all
needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
Property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this
Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of
the United states, or of any particular State."

   Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of
Columbia] residing in one of the states of the Union, are
classified as property and franchisees of the federal government,
and as an "individual entity." See Wheeling Steel Corp.
v. Fox 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773. Under the
"Buck Act," 4 U.S.C Secs. 105-113, the federal
government has created a "Federal area" within the
boundaries of the several states. This area is similar to any
territory that the federal government acquires through purchase,
conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon
the people in this "Federal area." Federal territorial
law is evidenced by the Executive Branch's Admiralty flag (a
federal flag with a gold or yellow fringe on it) flying in
schools, offices and courtrooms.

   To enjoy the freedoms secured by the federal and state
constitutions, you must live on the land in one of the states of
the Union of several states, not in any "Federal area."
Nor can you be involved in any activity that makes you subject to
"federal laws." You cannot have a valid Social Security
Number, a "resident" State driver's license, a motor
vehicle registered in your name, a bank account in a federally
insured bank, or any other known "contract implied in
fact" that would place you in this "Federal area"
and thus within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipal
laws of Congress. Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial
in nature and can only apply within the territorial jurisdiction
of Congress. See American Banana Co. v. United fruit Co., 213
U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909); U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 94
L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 402 (1925).

   This is not easy to do! Most banks are federally insured. It
may be inconvenient to bank at an institution that is not
federally insured. There are many things that become a little
more difficult to do without a SSN, driver's licenses, or a ZIP
Code.

   There has been created a fictional federal "State (of)
within a state." See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville,
344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwarts v.
O'Hara TP School District, 100 A 2d. 621, 625, 375, Pa. 440.
Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a
fictional State within a state. This fictional "State"
is identified by the use of two-letter abbreviations like
"PA", "NJ", "AZ", and
"DE", etc., as distinguished from the authorized
abbreviations for the sovereign States: "Pa.",
"N.J.", "Ariz.", and "Del." The
fictional States also use ZIP Codes that are within the
municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. The
Pennsylvania Commonwealth is one of the several States. The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, also known as PA, is a subdivision
of the District of Columbia. If you accept postal matter sent to
PA, and/or with a ZIP Code, the Courts say that this is evidence
that you are a federal citizen or a resident. Use of the Zip Code
is voluntary. See Domestic Mail Service Regulations, Section
122.32. The Postal service cannot discriminate against the
non-use of the ZIP Code. See Postal Reorganization Act, Section
403, (Public Law 91-375). The IRS has adopted the ZIP Code areas
as Internal Revenue Districts. See the Federal Register, Volume
51, Number 53, Wednesday March 19, 1986. The acceptance of mail
with a ZIP Code is one of the requirements for the IRS to have
jurisdiction to send you notices.

   When you apply for a Social Security Number, you are telling
the federal government that you are repudiating your state
Citizenship in order to apply for the benefits of citizenship in
the federal Nation. Granting a Social Security number is prima
facie evidence that no matter what you were before, you have
voluntarily entered into a voyage for profit or gain in
negotiable instruments and maritime enterprise. This is the
system that has been set up over the years to restrict, control,
and destroy our personal and economic liberties. Our legal system
is very complicated and you may not understand how it works. I
believe that this is intentional.

   Common law versus commercial law

   Besides the municipal laws for federal territory like the
District of Columbia, the Constitution specifies three other
types of law: Common Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty Law.

   Common Law is criminal law. Equity Law deals with written
contracts and is civil law. Admiralty Law deals with
international contracts and has both criminal and civil
penalties.

   A cursory review of the Uniform Commercial Code proves that it
was codified to replace the Negotiable Instrument Laws. Further
research reveals that the Negotiable Instrument Laws have their
foundation in the jurisdiction of Admiralty Law (Maritime Law --
law of the sea), and, the U.C.C. has come to be known in law as
the substantive common law. (Bank v. Moore, 201 Ala. 411, 78 So.
789) This substantive common law has also been directly tied to
the jurisdiction of the Law Merchant [International Law]. (Miller
v. Miller, 296 SW.2d 648).

   Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it
is void and unenforceable. Common Law contracts must also be
based on substance. For example, contracts used to read,
"For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will
paint your house, etc." That was a valid contract...the
dollar was a genuine silver dollar. Now suppose you wrote a
contract that said "For one Federal Reserve Note and other
considerations..." And suppose, for example, I painted your
house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and
get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note
is a "colorable" dollar, as it has no substance, and in
a Common Law jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.

   The word colorable means something that appears to be genuine
but is not. If it looks like a dollar, and spends like a dollar
but is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is
colorable. If a federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then
the contract becomes a colorable contract. And colorable
contracts must be enforced under a colorable jurisdiction. So by
creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a
jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts that use them. We
now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction which is not a
genuine Admiralty Jurisdiction. It is colorable Admiralty
Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using
colorable money.

   This government set up a "colorable" law system to
fit the colorable currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant
or the Law of Redeemable instruments because it dealt with paper
that was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal
Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system
of law which was completely colorable from start to finish. This
system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and
has been adopted in every state.

   One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial
Code (UCC) is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into:
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. Under the UCC, this is
not so. First of all, contracts are unnecessary. Under this new
law, "agreements" can be binding, and if you only
exercise the benefits of an "agreement," it is presumed
or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated
with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by
government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each
and every statute involved with that benefit. The trick has been
to get everybody exercising benefits that they don't believe they
can live without.

   One "benefit" that I accepted was the privilege of
discharging debt with limited liability, instead of paying debt.
When I pay a debt, I give substance for substance. If I buy a
quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk,
and the milk bought the dollar -- substance for substance. But if
I used a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not paid
for it. There is no substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is
worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive
value. Congress offers this benefit. Debt money, created by the
federal United States, can be spent all over the continental
united States; it will be legal tender for all debts, public and
private, and the limited liability is that I cannot be sued for
not paying my debts. It's as if they have said, "We're going
to help you out, and you can discharge your debts instead of
paying your debts." When I use this colorable money to
discharge my debts, I cannot use a Common Law court. I can only
use a colorable court. It would appear that I am stuck. If the
only legal tender is colorable money, then if I use any legal
tender, then the only court that is available to me is a
colorable court. But there is a way out.

   Volume 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code states
"The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves
whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss
of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or
estoppel." (UCC 1-207.7) It also says "When a waivable
right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation
thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a
later date." (UCC 1-207.4) It also says "The
Sufficiency of the Reservation--Any expression indicating an
intention to reserve such rights, is sufficient, such as
"without prejudice." (UCC 1-207.4)

   Whenever I sign any legal paper that deals with Federal
Reserve Notes--in any way, shape or manner--under my signature I
write, or stamp: "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207." When I
use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with my
signature, I am saying: "I reserve my right not to be
compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement
that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.
And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled
benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."
Some people use a rubber stamp that says "DISCHARGED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE UCC 1-207" on every Federal Reserve Note that pass
through their hands. I do not think this is necessary.

   What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial
agreement? When I use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver
dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money, so I have
to use Federal Reserve Notes--I have to accept the benefit. The
government has given me the benefit to discharge my debts with
limited liability. Therefore discharging my debts instead of
paying my debts is a compelled benefit.

   The Uniform Commercial Code says in Volume 1, Section 103.6:
"The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains
in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be
construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear
legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." It also
says: "The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law
action."

   Most court proceedings today are under a colorable Admiralty
jurisdiction also known as Statutory jurisdiction. In Admiralty
jurisdiction, "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. Have you ever heard a
court case where the judge overrules the decision of the jury?
This can only happen in a trial in admiralty jurisdiction. The
jury is only the conscience of the court. The judge is not an
impartial referee who understands Public Law but a commissioner
that supports Public Policy which is private law. And your
attorney may not be working for you. In CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM
(complete restatement of the entire American law) Volume 7,
section 4 states: "an attorney occupies a dual position
which imposes dual obligations. His first duty is to the courts
and the public not to the client and wherever the duties to his
client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in
the administration of justice, the former must yield to the
latter....Clients are also called 'wards of the court'." The
fifth edition of Blacks Law Dictionary states that a Ward of
court is: "person of unsound mind".

   What does this mean? If you don't know how the legal system
works you will be treated like a person of unsound mind that
hires an expensive attorney, who is an officer of the court, to
defend you, and that if the judge does not want to hear your
arguments, he can command the attorney, without your knowledge,
not to use the defense, and the judge does not let the jury read
the law, he only gives his interpretation of the law, and that
the laws are usually part of very large bills that are not even
read by members of Congress who voted on it, and that if, in the
unlikely event that the jury comes to conclusions that the judge
does not agree with, the judge can overturn the decision of the
jury. As bad as this is, it is not the worst case scenario. If
you are accused of breaking certain administrative laws, such as
driving infractions, you do not have the right to even this type
of jury trial. In Tax Court, you are actually suing the IRS which
is presumed innocent until you prove that they are guilty.
Because of this you do not have the right to have council of your
choice. Only the defendant has the right to council. The judges
are the most successful former prosecutors in Tax Court. Is this
the way our legal system was supposed to work? No! In Common Law
the jury determines both the facts and the law, the judge is an
impartial referee, and the council for both the Plaintiff and
defendant are working for their clients. If you know how the
legal system works and you are a state Citizen, you will
challenge the jurisdiction of the court and never go into
anything but a Common Law court. If the flag in the courtroom has
a gold fringe on it, you are in an admiralty court.

   The jury can nullify a law. The two most notable times in the
history of the United States were the end of slavery and the end
of prohibition. Hiding escaped slaves was against the federal law
(stolen property transferred across state lines). People arrested
for hiding runaway slaves would be tried. In many cases the jury
would find the defendant not guilty because the law was not
valid. The same thing happened to bootleggers during prohibition.
If a prosecutor can not get a jury to convict people of crimes
then the law has been effectively nullified. This was a way
Citizens defended their sovereignty from the government. If the
government passed a law that the Citizens disagreed with, they
would nullify it when someone was tried for breaking the law.
This is the way the country was supposed to be. By trying cases
in admiralty jurisdiction the jury can still try to nullify a law
but the judge can overrule the decision made by the jury. In many
cases, the judge incorrectly tells the jury they must follow the
instructions to the jury. If Citizens can not nullify laws, the
federal government has more power.

   From the last few paragraphs, you may think that I do not have
a high opinion of the integrity of our judges. This is not
correct. The courts are there to resolve disputes without
violence. Since the vast majority of the people in this country
are either US citizens or residents, judges are correct to assume
that everyone that comes before them are under the exclusive
jurisdiction of Congress. It is up to the Citizen to challenge
the jurisdiction of an admiralty court.

   So if you are a state Citizen and you take precautions of not
making it easy for the federal government to make the presumption
that you are involved in an international contract, such as
Federal Reserve Notes, then you will not be able to be charged
with any statutory offenses. You will be able to do anything you
wish, so long as you do not use force or fraud and you live with
the consequences of your actions.

   More federal glue

   You may also find it disturbing to know how an administrative
procedure can remove your children from you. In 1921 Congress
passed the Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act that created the United
States birth "registration" area (see Public Law 97,
67th Congress, Session I, Chapter 135, 1921.) That act allows you
to register your children when they are born. If you do so, you
will get a copy of the birth certificate. By registering your
children, which is voluntary, they become Federal Children. This
does several things: Your children become subjects of Congress
(they lose their state citizenship). A copy of the birth
certificate is sent to the Department of Vital Statistics in the
state in which they were born. The original birth certificate is
sent to the Department of Commerce in the District of Columbia.
It then gets forwarded to an International Monetary Fund (IMF)
building in Europe. Your child's future labor and properties are
put up as collateral for the public debt.

   Once a child is registered, a constructive trust is formed.
The parent(s) usually become the trustee (the person managing the
assets of the trust), the child becomes an asset of the trust,
and the state becomes the principal beneficiary of the trust. See
The Uniform Trustees' Powers Act (ORS 128.005(1)). If the
beneficiary does not believe the trustee is managing the assets
of the trust optimally, the beneficiary can go through an
administrative procedure to change trustees. This is the way that
bureaucrats can take children away from their parents if the
bureaucrat does not like the way the child is cared for. You may
say that there is nothing wrong with this. If a parent is
neglecting a child, then the state should remove the child from
the parents custody. Under common law a child can still be
removed from the parent but it takes twelve jurors from that
county to do so. Theoretically, a bureaucrat could remove your
children from you, if you disagree with some unrelated
administrative procedure, such as home schooling the child. This
is another way the government can intimidate citizens who
question its authority. With all this in mind, the statement that
the President says every few months: "Our children are our
most valuable asset." takes on a different meaning. That is
- your children are their assets.

   Part of the process of restoring my state Citizenship status
is revoking my Birth Certificate through a process called
REVOCATION OF SIGNATURE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY. If my Birth
Certificate is not revoked, then the courts consider me to be a
14th Amendment federal citizen and my labor and all of my assets
are put up as collateral for the public debt.

   When the government communicates with corporations it spells
the name of the corporation in all capital letters. If the
government refers to you with your name in all capital letters,
it is actually means to treat you like a corporation. A
corporation is created by government. It has no rights. The
government gives it privileges and the corporation must follow
the rules of its creator. I am not a corporation! A state Citizen
should challenge the government's assertion that he/she is a
corporation. This applies to both postal matter and court
documents.

   We gave the federal government the right to regulate commerce.
Since the government has started usurping our sovereignty, our
language has been subtly modified to include commercial terms.
Most people do not realize or care that they are using commercial
terms but the courts do. If you describe your actions in
commercial terms in a court, the judge will take silent notice of
your status as being regulatable by the federal government. In
the following examples, the commercial terms are all in upper
case letters: instead of a birthing room, you are now born in a
DELIVERY room. Instead of traveling in your car, you are DRIVING
or OPERATING a MOTOR VEHICLE in TRAFFIC and you don't have guests
in your car, you have PASSENGERS. Instead of a nativity you have
a DATE OF BIRTH. You are not a worker but an EMPLOYEE. You don't
own a house but a piece of REAL ESTATE.

   Lost rights

   A state Citizen has the right to have any gun he/she wishes
without being registered. A federal citizen does not. In the
District of Columbia, it is a felony to own a handgun unless you
are a police officer or a security guard or the hand gun was
registered before 1978. The District of Columbia has not been
admitted into the Union. Therefore the people of the District of
Columbia are not protected by the Second Amendment or any other
part of the Bill of Rights. Dispite the lack of legal guns in DC,
crime is rampant. It is called Murder Capital of the World. This
should prove that gun control/victim disarmament laws do not work
in America. Across the country, there is an assault on guns. If
you are a federal citizen and you are using Second Amendment
arguments to protect your rights to keep your guns, I believe you
are in for a surprise. First by registering gun owners then
renaming guns 'Assault Weapons' and 'Handguns', those in power
will take away your civil right to bear arms. Of course, they
won't tell you that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil
right and not a natural right for a US citizens. The Supreme
court has ruled that you as an individual have no right to
protection by the police. Their only obligation is to protect
"society". The real protection for state Citizens to
keep their guns is not the Second Amendment but the Ninth
Amendment. Note in Switzerland, every household must have, by
law, a fully automatic machine gun and ammunition. The crime rate
is very low there.

   A state Citizen has the right to travel on the public
easements (public roads) without being registered. A federal
citizen does not. It is a privilege for a foreigner to travel in
any of the several states. If you are a US citizen, you are a
foreigner in the state. The state legislators can require
foreigners and people involved in commerce (chauffeurs, freight
haulers) to be licensed, insured, and to have their vehicles
registered. When you register your car, you turn over power of
attorney to the state. At that point, it becomes a motor vehicle.
If it is not registered then it is not a motor vehicle and there
are no motor vehicle statutes to break. There are common law
rules of the road. If you don't cause an injury to anybody then
you can not be tried.

   If your car is registered, the state effectively owns your
car. The state supplies a sticker to put on your license plate
every time you re-register the motor vehicle. Look closely at the
sticker on your plate right now. You may be surprised to see that
it says "OFFICIAL USE ONLY".(Note: In some states, they
do not use stickers on the plate) You may have seen municipal
vehicles that have signs on them saying "OFFICIAL USE
ONLY" on them but why does yours? You do not own your car.
You may have a Certificate of Title but you probably do not have
the certificate of origin. You are leasing the state's vehicle by
paying the yearly registration fee. Because you are using their
equipment, they can make rules up on how it can be used. If you
break a rule, such as driving without a seatbelt, you have broken
the contract and an administrative procedure will make you pay
the penalty. A state Citizen must be able to explain to the
police officers why they are not required to have the usual
paperwork that most people have. They should carry copies of
affidavits and other paperwork in their car. The state Citizen
should also be prepared to go to traffic court and explain it to
the judge.

   Unanswered questions

   A reasonable person may ask - How did the government get so
far removed from the model of government defined by the
Constitution? I'm not sure. Perhaps it was a small group of
bankers who realized that they could control a central government
much easier than many independent sovereigns. Perhaps it is the
natural outcome of specialization; that is, it might be said that
a brain surgeon should not be expected to be an expert on
farming, manufacturing, mining, retailing, politics, as well as
medicine, therefore it is possible that the people wanted to be
governed by experts - allowing them to focus on their pleasures
and careers. Perhaps the elite thought they would help the poor
masses by making decisions for them because they believed that
the common people could not make good decisions for themselves.
Perhaps it is the result of people believing that they can get
something for nothing; that is, the people believed that the
government was stealing more from other citizens that it was
stealing from them, so overall, they were helped by such policies
more than they were hurt. There is some evidence to support each
of these propositions but, one thing is important: The government
is acting this way because the people allow it to. If the people
were very dissatisfied with the government, they would change it.
For all the complaining Americans do, they still elect the same
people again and again.

   Another good question is: If all this is true, why haven't I
heard these ideas before? Again, I am not sure. It is very
difficult to keep a conspiracy secret for very long. If there has
been a plan to steal the sovereignty of the people, then many
people would be affected and more than a few people had to know
about the plan in order to execute it. Unless all of the
politicians, bankers, media people were in on the conspiracy or
were intimidated so that they would not expose the plan, the
People would, sooner or later, find out. It is difficult for me
to believe that every politician, banker, and media person are
corrupt. I think it is more likely that people thought that the
experts could run the country better than they could. Today, many
people can not conceive the government being run any other way.
It is my belief that turning over the government to experts was a
mistake.

   Who are these people?

   The people who do research on state citizenship call
themselves patriots. This may sound strange to people who equate
patriotism with support for whatever the government does as long
as the flags are waving and the politicians say have the best
interest of the nation at heart, but patriots like Thomas
Jefferson saw patriotism as supporting the value of liberty. The
founders of the nation thought it was unpatriotic to accept being
ruled by a sovereign. In the Constitutional Republic that they
founded, each Citizen was a sovereign without subjects. That is,
we were all equal. This did not mean that we each had an equal
amount of money or an equal standard of living. Each Citizen had
equal opportunity to use the gifts we were given at birth. If you
did not use your gifts wisely or you did not have many gifts to
start with, then you had to accept a lower standard of living.
People who received charity were not treated with the same
respect as a person who did not.

   How does one reclaim their state Citizenship?

   This paper cannot give you everything you need to know on how
to restore your first class citizenship status. It is only a
starting point. With that being said, here is a list of the
papers that a state Citizen should to do to be free of federal
adhesion contracts. Some of these things are to be done at the
county recorder's office, others must be sent to the District of
Columbia.

   A notice of intent

   A declaration of sovereignty.

   An oath to your state.

   A notice that you are using Federal Reserve Notes under
protest.

   A revocation of

   signature and power of attorney

   driver's license (you don't need one unless you drive
commercially)

   motor vehicle registration (if your car is not registered, it
is not a motor vehicle)

   marriage license (but not your marriage contract)

   birth certificate (the hospital still has a record of birth)

   application for a Social Security Number

   union membership

   status as an employee (the word employee has a specific legal
definition)

   voter registration (you become an elector not a voter)

   private or public pension benefits

   You should also close credit cards, saving accounts, checking
accounts, IRA accounts, money market accounts, CD's, mutual
funds, and 401k. You should pay off all mortgages, car loans, and
any other loan that you have. You may continue to receive postal
matter with ZIP codes but you should not accept them. You should
also remove your children from the schools that receive public
money.

   This is not easy! But, you can do it. If only a few people
were doing this it would be very difficult. But hundreds of
thousands have done this just in the past few years. This makes
it much easier since alternative organizations are being formed
that are servicing the non federal citizens. Note: there are some
banks that have been around for more than 100 years that are safe
and not federally insured. Also common law trusts can be created
to circumvent some of the restrictions that the list above
implies. There are many intelligent and creative people working
on these problems. As the years go by, it will be more and more
difficult to remain federal citizens. As the number of state
Citizens increases, the amount of revenue that the federal
government receives will decrease. The amount of money that the
federal government spends will probably not decrease because most
of the people reclaiming their state Citizenship don't use the
services provided by the federal government. This will cause
taxes to increase which will cause even more people to drop out
of the federal system. I also expect to see the continuation of
the trend to add more regulations that the federal citizens have
to follow.

   Other sources of information

   The best source of information is a law library. you can find
a law library that is open to the public in you county
courthouse. You may find better law libraries at a local college.
The problem with the law library is that there are so many books
in it. Some of the court cases cited here are old. For one reason
or another, some of the books that had information on this
subject seemed to have been removed from my local county
courthouse. I recommend that you visit the county courthouse law
library. If you have read this far, even if you decide not to
change your status you will probably find it very interesting.

   If you have a computer and a modem you can connect up to
bulletin boards that are dedicated to the sovereignty issue. A
very good bulletin board is located in California. The telephone
number is 1-818-888-9882 and the line attributes are BAUD rate up
to 14.4, Parity - none, Data bits - 8, Stop bits - 1. If you do
not live in the 818 area code, it will cost you the toll charges.
There is no charge for using the board. There is a file on there
that contains the telephone numbers of other bulletin boards.
Perhaps you can find a number with your area code so you can
avoid the toll charges. The bulletin board has files pertaining
to two subjects. The first is restoring the rights that you lost
when you lost your state Citizenship. The second is trying to
prevent the loss of more rights by opposing the New World Order,
that is losing your US citizenship status to become a UN citizen.
A word of warning must be given at this point. Some of the people
who do basic legal research start out with some extremely unusual
conspiracy theories that they try to prove. You may be offended
at these theories. Time will tell if the conspiracies exist or
not. Dispite this the research is very valuable.

   ANTISHYSTER is a paper that is published six times a year. It
is "A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE AMERICAN LEGAL
SYSTEM." This excellent publication is about 60 pages. The
annual subscription is $25.00 but, if you order as a group (3
subscriptions or more at the same time) it is only $15.00. This
is money well spent. You can reach them at (214) 418-8993 or send
cash, check, or money order to: AntiShyster c/o P.O.B. 540786
Dallas, Texas 75354-0786. You can order by Visa or Master Card at
(800) 477-5508.

   The AMERICAN'S BULLETIN is a monthly newspaper that is
dedicated to be "A VOICE OF OPPOSITION TO TYRANNY". It
is printed in Oregon and is mailed across the nation. Accept for
a few articles about unconventional ideas on alternative health
care the newspaper seems to be exclusively dedicated to
Citizenship. You can call them at 1-503-779-7709. The cost is
$25.00 a year. You can get it shipped without a ZIP Code but it
cost $30.00 because it will be shipped via first class mail.
There are advanced topics that I have not described in this paper
printed every month.

   PERCEPTIONS is a magazine that is published four times a year.
It has articles about Citizenship but it also has articles UFOs,
Astrology, and alternative health strategies. The cost is $15.00
a year. You can reach them at: Perceptions, 11664 National Blvd.,
No. 314, Los Angeles, California 90064.

   THE SPOTLIGHT is a newspaper that reports on the New World
Order and how it is being implemented. You can reach them at 300
Independence Ave. SE, Washington, D.C. 20003.

   The LA Lawman is a television show that is broadcast on cable
TV in California. You can by a copy of the 30 minute videotapes
on issues relating to state Citizens and perhaps even get them
broadcast in your area. You can reach The LA Lawman at 9245
Reseda Blvd Suite 450 Northridge CA 91324 or at (818) 366-6187.

   There are many good books that you may want. LEGAL RESEARCH -
How To Find and Understand the Law by attorneys Stephen Elias
& Susan Levinkind is a good introduction to the law library.
It is published by Nolo Press in 1992. It costs $16.95. Before
getting this book, I was never in a law library but now, I can do
legal research!

   The FEDERALIST PAPERS by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison,
& John Jay is published by Mentor. The paperback cost $5.99.
This book can be downloaded from the bulletin board listed above.
It contains more than 500 pages of arguments that Hamilton,
Madison, and Jay wrote to be published in the local papers for
the purpose of ratifying the Constitution. The Supreme Court
sometimes quotes the Federalist Papers in its decisions. If you
want to know what the Constitution means, then this is the book
for you.

   THE ANTI-FEDERALIST by the Opponents if the Constitution is
published by The University of Chicago Press. The articles in
this book were published in the local papers for the purpose of
not ratifying the Constitution. It is not quite as good as the
Federalist Papers but, it also determines what the framers of the
constitution were thinking.

   LIBERTY LIBRARY publishes a booklet that contains the
Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and
a description of jurors rights. A single copy is $1.50; but if
you buy 20 or more, the cost is only $0.50 a piece. I find it
amazing that all through public school, I never read more than
two paragraphs from any of these documents. Every child should
have the opportunity to have a copy of this booklet. You can
reach Liberty Library at 300 Independence Ave., SE, Washington,
D.C. 20003.

   DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA by Alexis De Tocqueville is published by
Anchor Books (DOUBLEDAY & COMPANY, INC.) De Tocqueville
traveled around the United States of America in the 1830s &
1840s. He compared, in minute detail, the differences between how
the American Republics were run and how the French Republic was
run. If you want to see how the nation existed without income
taxes and government bureaucracies, then this is the book for
you. It is kind of long (almost 800 pages).

   The Federal Zone by Mitch Modeleski can be downloaded from the
bulletin board listed above. It describes in more detail how the
federal government usurped power of the states by creating a
federal zone that nearly swallowed the states. The IRS code is
explained.

   Invisible Contracts by George Mercier can be downloaded from
the bulletin board listed above. This book describes the adhesion
contracts that bind people into federal jurisdiction. It also
about conspiracies by the New World Order people. It is written
from the perspective of a Mormon. Mormon religious ideas are
described in great detail and with great fervor. The information
on adhesion contracts is very enlightening.

   Conclusion

   The ideas in this paper may be new to you. You may not believe
them. You may like the federal system. If you have read this far,
I hope you will see the government in a different light.

   Let's restate the central premise of this paper.

   The government recognizes two distinct classes of citizens: a
state Citizen and a federal citizen. Each has different rights
and responsibilities. State Citizens created the states who
created the federal government who created federal citizens. Most
people are born state Citizens and become federal citizens
without their knowledge sometime after birth. You can reclaim
your state Citizenship status through a legal procedure. If you
remain a federal citizen, you will pay lots of taxes and have no
rights. If you reclaim your state Citizenship status, you will
have to learn about our legal system and you will have to change
the way you bank, and save, and invest, and other aspects of
modern living that probably taken for granted. But a state
Citizen that knows the legal system has more control over his/her
life.

   Information is power. For decades the information, and the
power, has been centralized by the government class. Today, the
balance of power is shifting. As Citizens become more vigilant
about government encroachments, the government's power is
lessened. As the number of state Citizens mushrooms, you will
hear about them in the press as the empire strikes back. This
movement is not trying to change the system -- this is the way it
works now! In fact, any attempt to change the Constitution via a
constitutional convention or international treaty should be
opposed strongly. Can you imagine what sort of constitution would
be written if our current political leaders do the writing? Now
you know what this movement is all about. Whether you decide to
change your status is up to you.

   Please send a copy of this paper to everybody that you think
is smart enough to understand it.