recent discussion of State Citizenship at the Yahoo! Group: TheFinePrint
- ----- Forwarded Message ----From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
To: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@...>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 5:08:54 PM
Subject: discussion of State Citizenship at the Yahoo! Group: TheFinePrint
> That is the ultimate result of a Christian trying to 'vote'.
> the selecting of the lesser of two evils is still evil.
> Of course you can always write in your candidate...
You're making a very good point about selecting evil, either way;
but, you're still missing a very fundamental point of Law here:
Permitting federal citizens to vote and serve on juries,
while NOT permitting State Citizens to vote or serve on juries,
is an obvious violation of Equal Protection of the Law.
That fundamental Right is guaranteed by 2 Human Rights Treaties:
(see cites re: equal protection)
To be eligible to vote anywhere in America at the
present time, one must execute a Voter Registration
Affidavit affirming, under penalty of perjury,
that the voter is a federal citizen aka
"citizen of the United States":
For confirmation, confer at the voter and juror
eligibility statutes at the State and Federal levels
e.g. this pleading exposes that same flaw in the
Federal Jury Selection and Service Act in Title 28
of the U.S. Code:
(also negates Federal "grand juries" for discriminating against
State Citizens, contrary to the policy at 28 U.S.C. 1861:)
"... all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered
for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts
of the United States ....
More pertinent cases are cited and quoted here:
(see all links at the very end)
Before the Internet, it took a very VERY long time
to locate ANY cases which held, correctly, that we
have two (2) classes of citizens in America,
not one (1) class.
This case is particularly definitive, and dispositive:
... citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the
privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of
diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this
fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the
judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.
... citizens of the United States** ... were also not thought of;
but in any event a citizen of the United States**, who is not a
citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal]
[Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]
Excuse me: please see the Supremacy Clause
for a list of laws which comprise the
"supreme Law of the Land" in America:
There is legally an AUTOMATIC STAY now in effect,
due to the official DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY filed
by the United States (Federal government) ex rel.
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District
Moreover, there has never been the required liability STATUTE
enacted by Congress, creating a specific liability for taxes
imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code:
That legal estoppel was formally activated at the Tenth Circuit here:
See Item (7) in chief:
(7) SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE to Hon. Paul H. O’Neill,
former Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Dept. of the Treasury,
Washington, D.C., PAST DUE as of November 1, 2002 A.D.:
The controlling legal authority here is Commissioner v. Acker:
see this excellent abstract, with a link to that decision:
... to uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold
that it may be imposed by regulation,
which, of course, the law does not permit.
United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 359;
Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446 -447;
Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134.
In point of fact, NOTICES OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN ("NFTL")
are also fraudulent due to the false claims on each NFTL
that procedurally proper ASSESSMENTS have been done.
However, such ASSESSMENTS are now legally impossible,
absent the requisite liability STATUTE and
in light of the AUTOMATIC STAY supra.
> Being a citizen of the United States is not some trap
> that reduces you slavery.
Yes it is, and yes it does, e.g.:
For example, as such federal citizens have no voting
members in the Senate or House of Representatives,
because their citizenship is domiciled in D.C.,
which never joined the Union and can't join the
Union without a constitutional amendment.
See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (re: exclusive jurisdiction).
D.C. has no voting Senators or Representative(s).
Also, just read the Federal Regulation at 26 CFR 1.1-1:
(tried to impose a specific liability for subtitle A income taxes
upon federal citizens and resident aliens: State Citizens
are not mentioned: cf. inclusio unius est exclusio alterius)
We go into these distinctions in great detail in "The Federal Zone":
... particularly the Chapter entitled "The Matrix"
(written before the film by the same name):
However, as I just pointed out, there is no underlying
Statute at Large which created this specific liability.
The absence of that required Statute violates the decision
of the U.S. Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Acker:
> What this shows us is that by operation of being a State Citizen
> we are ipso facto a United States Citizen.
That statement is not correct, and it is
very misleading: yes, a State Citizen is
a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America (50 States),
but "United States" -- by itself -- has 3 legal meanings,
each different from the others:
The term "United States Citizen" [sic] is simply
not defined anywhere in Federal laws; and,
because of those 3 meanings, that term is vague
See Void for Vagueness Doctrine here.
There are only 2 classes of citizens,
and one can be a State Citizen without
also being a federal citizen. Repeating:
Search for "Right of Election" e.g.:
Google site:www.supremelaw.org +"Right of Election"
There is also no such thing as "national citizenship"
under American laws never repealed. Thus,
EVEN IF "United States Citizen" somehow referred
to a Citizen of the Union, that construction is meaningless:
Citizenship, strictly speaking, is a term of MUNICIPAL law:
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 its own ....
[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]
[(1875) emphasis added]
Read: 51 municipal jurisdictions:
50 States and 1 Federal government.
Thus, we are either Citizens of ONE OF the 50 States;
or, we are citizens of the Federal government;
or, by Right of Election we are both.
Because the Federal government has degenerated
into a criminal enterprise, I choose (elect)
to be a State Citizen who is not also a federal citizen,
by Right of Election.
Citizenship, says Moore on International Law, strictly speaking, is a term of municipal law and denotes the possession within the particular state of full civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications, such as minority, sex, etc. The conditions on which citizenship are [sic] acquired are regulated by municipal law. There is no such thing as international citizenship nor international law (aside from that which might be contained in treaties) by which citizenship is acquired.
[Roa v. Collector of Customs, 23 Philippine 315, 332 (1912)]
There is a very thorough treatment of this topic
in Chapter 11 of "The Federal Zone":
The federal zone is an absolute legislative democracy,
not a Constitutional Republic. This is explained in
the winning brief by John Knox, in part by quoting
Downes v. Bidwell (read: "the Constitution of the
United States does not extend beyond the limits
of the States united by and under it"):
The Downes Doctrine supra was elaborated in the
decision of the Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison v. Evatt:
(the guarantees of the Constitution extend into the federal zone
only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable)
Sorry: but you have fallen victim to the deceptive, and
false nomenclature "United States Citizen" which
simply does NOT exist anywhere in applicable
Federal and State laws.
Don't feel too bad, however: that deception was intentional:
Richard McDonald is not in the habit of fully supporting
his essays with cites to case law, constitutional provisions, etc.
You can contact him here, for clarifications:
California has had 2 Constitutions: 1849 and 1879.
The latter removed all references to State Citizens
and attempted to establish the false presumption
that there is only one class of "federal citizens".
That was fraud!
As such, the California Constitution of 1879 conflicts
with the Constitution for the United States of America
as lawfully amended.
The distinctions do not need to be "blurry"
as long as we know how to distinguish State Citizens --
as recognized since 1788 in the Qualifications Clauses --
from federal citizens first created by the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
Remember, now, that Act did not and could not
repeal or amend any provision in the Constitution:
Eisner v. Macomber: "Congress cannot by legislation
alter the Constitution."
Here's the correct nomenclature:
Citizen of the United States = State Citizen
(read "Citizen of ONE OF the States united)
citizen of the United States = federal citizen
(read "citizen of the District of Columbia")
This clear distinction between the Union States and the
territories is endorsed officially by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Using language very similar to that of the California Supreme
Court in the De La Guerra case, the high Court explained the
distinction this way in the year 1885, seventeen years after the
adoption of the so-called 14th amendment:
The people of the United States***, as sovereign owners of
the national territories, have supreme power over them and
their inhabitants. ... The personal and civil rights of the
inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to
other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty,
which restrain all the agencies of government, state and
national; their political rights are franchises which they
hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the
congress of the United States**. This doctrine was fully
and forcibly declared by the chief justice, delivering the
opinion of the court in National Bank v. County of Yankton,
101 U.S. 129.
[Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)]
[italics in original, emphasis added]
The key sentence is this one:
"Their political rights are franchises which they hold
as privileges in the legislative discretion of the
Congress of the United States."
As such, federal citizenship is a municipal franchise,
domiciled in D.C. That enclave is not protected by
the Guarantee Clause. Strictly construed, that Clause
only guarantees a Republican Form of Government
to the 50 States, and not to the federal zone.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice