Constitutional Truth Under Attack
Constitutional Truth Under Attack
Not soon after the State National Wiki Article was posted, a group of people, including known tax attorneys, are attempting to get the truth removed. See the article here before it could disappear:
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ State_National
Here is the entry where a group of attorneys are attempting to get the Wiki entry removed with their worthless comments:
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Wikipedia: Articles_ for_deletion/ State_NationalWe need to bombard the site to keep this information available!People have not given any sufficient offer of proof why the article should be deleted. Nobody had shown (proven) where the article has violated any of the criteria to be removed. This is clearly an attack by people who wish to see this information hidden from the public's viewing. Nobody has given any references where the article is specifically flawed in law.
IF that SO-CALLED “article” contained the NORMAL People’s Awareness Coalition (PAC) “material” then I understand WHY it was DELETED.
For example, in an email regarding a “live Community Call with PAC Groups Education - info@... ~ Episode 21 ~ Call ID: 62794”, PAC “claimed” that SUPPOSEDLY “In the original form of the constitution system, a man was not subject to the United States. Now that he is a citizen of the District of Columbia-known as the United States-he is subject to its law. The Empire ( United States ) is setup by the Roman law system, but extends itself into a whole other realm of private law that its citizens must maintain.”
Even the FIRST U.S. SUPREME COURT acknowledged that FACT that the people/citizens of the several states of the Union were subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
“1st. I acknowledge, and shall always contend, that the States are sovereignties. But with the free will, arising from absolute independence, they might combine in Government for their own happiness. Hence sprang the confederation; under which indeed the States retained their exemption from the sorensic jurisdiction of each other, and, except under a peculiar modification, of the United States themselves. Nor could this be otherwise; since such a jurisdiction was no where (according to the language of that instrument) expressly delegated. This Government of supplication cried aloud for its own reform; and the public mind of America decided, that it must perish of itself,and that the Union would be thrown into jeopardy, unless the energy of the general system should be increated. Then it was the present Constitution produced a new order of things. It derives its origin immediately from the people; and the people individually are, under certain limitations, subject to the legislative, executive, and judicial authorities thereby established. The States are in fact assemblages of these individuals who are liable to process. The limitations, which the Federal Government is admitted to impose upon their powers, are diminutions of sovereignty, at least equal to the making of them defendants.
The articles of confederation, it is well known, did not operate upon individual citizens; but operated only upon states, This defect was remedied by the national Constitution, which, as all allow, has an operation on individual citizens.
Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the Constitution, will be satisfied, that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted, for such purposes, a national Government, complete in all its parts, with powers Legislative, Executive and Judiciary; and, in all those powers, extending over the whole nation.
Every State in the Union in every instance where its sovereignty has not been delegated to the United States , I consider to be as completely sovereign, as the United States are in respect to the powers surrendered. The United States are sovereign as to all the powers of Government actually surrendered: Each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, because the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them: Of course the part not surrenderred must remain as it did before. The powers of the general Government, either of a Legislative or Executive nature, or which particularly concerns Treaties with Foreign Powers, do for the most part (if not wholly) affect individuals, and not States: They require no aid from any State authority. This is the great leading distinction between the old articles of confederation, and the present constitution. "
CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA. , 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
And the ALLEGED “claim” about ROMAN CIVIL LAW is also BS since the CONSTITUTION & AMERICAN LAW is based on ENGLISH COMMON LAW.
Magna Carta, also called Magna Carta Libertatum (the Great Charter of Freedoms), is an English legal charter, originally issued in the year 1215. It was written in Latin and is known by its Latin name. The usual English translation of Magna Carta is Great Charter.
Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain rights (pertaining to freemen), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — and implicitly supported what became the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.
Magna Carta was arguably the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today in the English speaking world. Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution. Many clauses were renewed throughout the Middle Ages, and continued to be renewed as late as the 18th century. By the second half of the 19th century, however, most clauses in their original form had been repealed from English law.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I voluntarily stated what his own powers were under the law.
“The constitution of the United States , as originally adopted, uses the words 'citizen of the United States ' and 'natural-born citizen of the United States .' By the original constitution, every representative in congress is required to have been 'seven years a citizen of the United States,' and every senator to have been 'nine years a citizen of the United States'; and 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president.' Article 2, 1. The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born r naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 935; Boyd v. U. S. , 116 U.S. 616, 624 , 625 S., 6 Sup. Ct. 524; Smith v. Alabama , 124 U.S. 465 , 8 Sup. Ct. 564. The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent , Comm. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. U. S., 91 U.S. 270 , 274. [169 U.S. 649, 655] U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK , 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
CIVIL CODE 5. The provisions of this Code, so far as they are substantially the same as existing statutes or the common law, must be construed as continuations thereof, and not as new enactments.
CIVIL CODE 6. No action or proceeding commenced before this Code takes effect, and no right accrued, is affected by its provisions.
CIVIL CODE 22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.
CIVIL CODE 1866. When a statute or instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right, and the other against it, the former is to be adopted.
Here is another EXAMPLE of their SO-CALLED “information” from the PAC website.
“It should be noted that Section 1 establishes the new “citizen of the United States ” status. Simply put, this creates the new so-called “dual” or “federal” citizenship5 under this amendment. It is very important to note that this dual citizenship status did not exist prior to the forced “implementation” of the infamous amendment. We also should note that the amendment is applied to all people—or persons as the amendment establishes—who are found in the several states in manner of representation by Congress.6 It should be noted that the term “persons” is considered to be an element of the Section 2 problem.”
IF it were true that “this dual citizenship status did not exist prior to the forced “implementation” of the infamous amendment”, then WHY did in 1856 both the U.S. SUPREME COURT & BOUVIER’S LAW DICTIONARY both say that the citizens of the several states were the citizens of the United States BEFORE the 14th Amendment (1868)?
“It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States . And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State [60 U.S. 393, 407] which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States”. DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States , has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children.
2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States , except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Art. 4, s. 2.
3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States , each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States ; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.
4. A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the Union, is a citizen of that state. 6 Pet. 761 Paine, 594;1 Brock. 391; 1 Paige, 183 Metc. & Perk. Dig. h. t.; vide 3 Story's Const. 1687 Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.; 2 Kent, Com. 258; 4 Johns. Ch. R. 430; Vatt. B. 1, c. Id, 212; Poth. Des Personnes, tit. 2, s. 1. Vide Body Politic; Inhabitant.
BOUVIER’S LAW DICTIONARY, 1856 EDITION
Given the FACT that much of "patriot mythology" EFFECTIVELY "disenfranchises" most "patriots" who "believe" in it, perhaps people should consider the possibility that much of it is PROPAGANDA & DISINFORMATION that has been purposely DESIGNED to render them POLITICALLY & ECONOMICLY IMPOTENT.
COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States . The FBI used covert operations from its inception, however formal COINTELPRO operations took place between 1956 and 1971. The FBI's stated motivation at the time was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order." 
According to FBI records, 85% of COINTELPRO resources were expended on infiltrating, disrupting, marginalizing, and/or subverting groups suspected of being subversive, such as communist and socialist organizations; the women's rights movement; militant black nationalist groups, and the non-violent civil rights movement, including individuals such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Congress of Racial Equality, the American Indian Movement, and other civil rights groups; a broad range of organizations labeled "New Left", including Students for a Democratic Society, the National Lawyers Guild, the Weathermen, almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, and even individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation; and nationalist groups such as those "seeking independence for Puerto Rico." The other 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and subvert "white hate groups," including the Ku Klux Klan and National States' Rights Party.
The directives governing COINTELPRO were issued by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who ordered FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of these movements and their leaders.
After all, according to it, people SUPPOSEDLY can NOT vote, hold office, serve on juries, use a social security number (SSN), use a zip code & so on, without ALLEGEDLY making them "subject" to certain ALLEGED "jurisdictions".
WHICH makes them POLITICALLY IMPOTENT, DOESN’T it?
And in many cases following "patriot mythology" can render people ECONOMICLY IMPOTENT as well since it is often used to SUCKER people into SCAMS such as “NESARA”, “bills of exchange”, “debentures”, “mortgage elimination”, “gifting” & so on.
And most of those who PROMOTE those SUPPOSED “arguments” USE them to sell people SEMINARS & other materials of QUESTIONABLE value BASED on people’s “belief” in those “arguments”, DON’T they?
Could it be POSSIBLE that PAC is promoting this SO-CALLED “state national” information in order to SELL people on the “idea” of EXPATRIATION?
EXPATRIATION AND THE LEGAL ENTAILMENTS
In setting the premise:
There are some “patriots” out there that say that expatriation is the wrong thing to do in freeing oneself from the system. We beg to differ—herein are some legal authorities: [REST OMITTED]
Patrick in California
Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY
"It isn't the jumping that kills you. It is the sudden stop."-Unknown
--- In email@example.com, "JcP" <jcpes1@...> wrote:
> Constitutional Truth Under Attack
> Not soon after the State National Wiki Article was posted, a group of people, including known tax attorneys, are attempting to get the truth removed. See the article here before it could disappear:
> Here is the entry where a group of attorneys are attempting to get the Wiki entry removed with their worthless comments:
> We need to bombard the site to keep this information available!
> People have not given any sufficient offer of proof why the article should be deleted. Nobody had shown (proven) where the article has violated any of the criteria to be removed. This is clearly an attack by people who wish to see this information hidden from the public's viewing. Nobody has given any references where the article is specifically flawed in law.