Reference Material - For Information Only!

Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it.  

Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.

Expatriating Rules

(n) Special rules for determining when an individual is no longer a United States citizen or long-term resident

For purposes of this chapter—

(1) United States citizens

An individual who would (but for this paragraph) cease to be treated as a citizen of the United States shall continue to be treated as a citizen of the United States until such individual—

(A) gives notice of an expatriating act (with the requisite intent to relinquish citizenship) to the Secretary of State, and

(B) provides a statement in accordance with section 6039G (if such a statement is otherwise required).

(2) Long-term residents

A long-term resident (as defined in section 877 (e)(2)) who would (but for this paragraph) be described in section 877 (e)(1) shall be treated as a lawful permanent resident of the United States and as not described in section 877 (e)(1) until such individual—

(A) gives notice of termination of residency (with the requisite intent to terminate residency) to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and

(B) provides a statement in accordance with section 6039G (if such a statement is otherwise required).

(o) Cross references

(1) Other definitions

For other definitions, see the following sections of Title 1 of the United States Code:

(1) Singular as including plural, section 1.

(2) Plural as including singular, section 1.

(3) Masculine as including feminine, section 1.

(4) Officer, section 1.

(5) Oath as including affirmation, section 1.

(6) County as including parish, section 2.

(7) Vessel as including all means of water transportation, section 3.

(8) Vehicle as including all means of land transportation, section 4.

(9) Company or association as including successors and assigns, section 5.

(2) Effect of cross references

For effect of cross references in this title, see section 7806 (a).

Misc RM 5    Misc reference material

Reference Material - For Information Only!

Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it. 

Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.

Expatriating Rules

(n) Special rules for determining when an individual is no longer a United States citizen or long-term resident

For purposes of this chapter—

(1) United States citizens

An individual who would (but for this paragraph) cease to be treated as a citizen of the United States shall continue to be treated as a citizen of the United States until such individual—

(A) gives notice of an expatriating act (with the requisite intent to relinquish citizenship) to the Secretary of State, and

(B) provides a statement in accordance with section 6039G (if such a statement is otherwise required).

(2) Long-term residents

A long-term resident (as defined in section 877 (e)(2)) who would (but for this paragraph) be described in section 877 (e)(1) shall be treated as a lawful permanent resident of the United States and as not described in section 877 (e)(1) until such individual—

(A) gives notice of termination of residency (with the requisite intent to terminate residency) to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and

(B) provides a statement in accordance with section 6039G (if such a statement is otherwise required).

(o) Cross references

(1) Other definitions

For other definitions, see the following sections of Title 1 of the United States Code:

(1) Singular as including plural, section 1.

(2) Plural as including singular, section 1.

(3) Masculine as including feminine, section 1.

(4) Officer, section 1.

(5) Oath as including affirmation, section 1.

(6) County as including parish, section 2.

(7) Vessel as including all means of water transportation, section 3.

(8) Vehicle as including all means of land transportation, section 4.

(9) Company or association as including successors and assigns, section 5.

(2) Effect of cross references

For effect of cross references in this title, see section 7806 (a).

Cases Jurisdiction

CHALLENGE JURISDICTION

Challenging jurisdiction is one of the best defenses you can make, because if you use the right argument it is almost impossible for you to loose!

If they attempt to tell you that you can't question their jurisdiction you can easily shut them up with these court rulings!

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.

Read US v Lopez and Hagans v Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void. Challenge jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme Court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction. If it [jurisdiction] doesn't exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. ...without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be "sovereign." At best, to proceed would be in "excess" of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State's/ USA's cause. Broom v.  Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government's cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).

A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

"A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court" OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150

"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.

"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.

"A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.

"A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.

"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.

"the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v.Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.

Vehicle/Traffic

"An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640.

"Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract." Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596.

"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially". Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.

"A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.

"Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup., Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.

The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute."

Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 105.

Cases Fraud and More

"Fraud" may be committed by a failure to speak when the duty of speaking is imposed as much as by speaking falsely."             

Batty v Arizona State Dental Board, 112 P.2d 870, 57 Aria. 239. (1941)

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."

Murdock v Peon, 319 US 105

"Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."

U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61.  Documents"; ("Constitutions")

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never passed."  

Norton v Shelby County , 118 US 425

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately"

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F2d 997, 299-300

"If the state converts a liberty into a privileged the citizen can engage in the right with impunity"     

Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, 373 US 262

"Fraud: An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right."

Black's 5th, 594 (emphasis added.)

The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured liberty.

Boyd v US, H6US616

"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."              

Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436

"Where a party desires to rescind upon the grounds of mistake or fraud he must upon the discovery of the facts, at once announce his purpose, and adhere to it."

Grymes v Saunders, 93 US 55, 62.

"...If they proposed to rescind, their duty was to assert that right promptly, unconditionally, and invasively,"

Richardson v. Lowe, 149 Fed Rep 625, 627-28.

"Fraud maybe committed by failure to speak, but a duty to speak must be imposed,"

Dunahay v. Struzik, 393 P.2d 930, 96 Ariz. 246 (1964).

"When one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the concealment of others, such concealment is in effect a false representation that what is disclosed is the whole truth."            

State v Coddington, 662 P.2d 155,135 Ariz. 480. ( Ariz. App. 1983)

"Suppression of a material fact which a party is bound in good faith to disclose is equivalent to a false representation." Leigh v. Loyd, 244 P.2d 356, 74 Ariz. 84- (1952)

"When one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the concealment of others, such concealment is in effect a false representation that what is disclosed is the whole truth."            

State v. Coddington, 662 P.2d 155,135 Ariz. 480 ( Ariz. App. 1983)

"Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth."

Morrison v Acton, 198 P.2d 590, 68 Ariz. 27 ( Ariz. 1948)

"Damages will lie in proper case of negligent misrepresentation of failure to disclose."

Van Buren v. Pima Community College Dist Bd., 546 P.2d 821, 113 Ariz. 85 (Ariz.1976)

"Where one under duty to disclose facts to another fails to do so, and other is injured thereby, an action in tort lies against party whose failure to perform his duty caused injury."       Regan v First Nat. Bank,

101 P.2d 214, 55 Ariz. 320 ( Ariz. 1940)

"Where relation of trust or confidence exists between two parties so that one places peculiar reliance in trustworthiness of another, latter is under duty to make full and truthful disclosure of all material facts and is liable for misrepresentation or concealment."

Stewart v. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 64 P.2d 101, 49 Ariz. 34- ( Ariz. 1937)

"Concealing a material fact when there is duty to disclose may be actionable fraud."

Universal Inv. Co. v. Sahara Motor Inn, Inc., 619 P-2d 485,127 Ariz. 213- (Ariz. App. 1980)

"An "ex post facto law" is defined as a law which provides for the infliction of punishment upon a person for an act done which, when it was committed, was innocent; a law which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; a law that changes the punishment or inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; a law that hanges the rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than was required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the offender; a law which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or the deprivation of a right which, when done, was lawful; a law which deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection to which they have become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of the proclamation of amnesty; every law which, in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage."              

Wilensky v. Fields, Fla, 267 So.2d 1, 5. [Source: Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, p 580.]

"Qualified immunity defense fails if public officer violates clearly established right because a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his conduct"

Jones vs Counce 7-F3d-1359-8th Cir 1993; Benitez v Wolff 985-F3d 662 2nd Cir 1993

"The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void of law."       

Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137

"And be it further enacted. That no summons, writ, declaration, return, process, judgment, or other proceedings in civil cases in any of the courts or the United States, shall be abated, arrested, quashed or reversed, for any defect or want of form, but the said courts respectively shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall appear unto them, without regarding any imperfections, defects or want of form in such writ, declaration, or other pleading, returns process, judgment, or course of proceeding whatsoever, except those only in cases of demurrer, which the party demurring shall specially sit down and express together with his demurrer as the cause thereof. And the said courts respectively shall and may, by virtue of this act, from time to time, amend all and every such imperfections, defects and wants of form, other than those only which the party demurring shall express as aforesaid, and may at any, time, permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process of pleadings upon such conditions as the said courts respectively shall in their discretion, and by their rules prescribe (a)"

Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, Section 342, FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. 1, ch. 20,1789

Due Process provides that the "rights of pro se (Sui Juris) litigants are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers; if j court can reasonably read pleadings to state valid claim on which litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigants unfamiliarity with pleading requirements"

(Spencer v Doe; 1998; Green v Bransou 1997; Boag v McDougall; 1998; Haines v Kerner, 1972)

"Right to proceed pro se (Sui Juris) is fundamental statutory right that is afforded highest degree of protection"

(Devine v Indian River County School Bd., 11th Cir. 1997

Cases  Historical Review Of Title 26 And Statutes At Large

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice."

-- Justice Hugo L. Black (U. S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971).

"If we know the truth, we must tell it; if we don't, we must learn it!" It is critical to our spirit.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the Citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the Citizen to keep the government from falling into error." American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 442.

HISTORICAL REVIEW OF TITLE 26 AND STATUTES AT LARGE

The Internal Revenue Service relies on Sections 6201, 6321 and 6331 of Title 26 as the reference for legal evidence of authority of law to assess, lien and/or levy for the collection of alleged income taxes.

The laws, which apply to the general public of the 50 Union States, are referred to as the Statutes at Large. These Statutes are clear as to the taxable activities and to those liable for these activities as shown by the Statutes at Large. There are numerous Federal Court decisions in affirmation. Cites below:

"The official source to find United States law is the Statutes at Large and the United States Code is only prima facie evidence of such laws." Royer's Inc. v. United States, 265 F2d 615, 59-1 (1959, CA3 Pa)

"Unless Congress affirmatively enacts title of United States Code into law, that title is only "prima facie" evidence of the law." Preston v. Heckler, 734 F2d1359, (1984, CA9 Alaska)

"... that the Code establishes "prima facie" the laws of the United States , the very meaning of "prima facie" being that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent." Stephen v. United States , 319 U.S. 423 (1943); United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95 (1964)

"The Code establishes prima facie what the laws of United States are but to the extent that provisions of Code are inconsistent with Statutes at Large, The latter will prevail" Best Food, Inc. v. United States, 147 F Supp 749 (1956)

"Internal Revenue Code construction to Statutes at Large must be made by individual section and subsection since each section and subsection is derived from their own set of Statutes at Large pamphlet, Joint Committee in Taxation, 'Derivations of Code Sections of the Internal Revenue Codes of 1939 and 1954 (JCS-1-92) January 21, 1992, U.S. Government Printing Office."

As it should be easily understood by the Justice Department Tax Division counselors;

Assessment– The IRS claims this authority rests in Title 26 USC §6201.Legal presumption of lawful authority of Section 6201 by the IRS, as applied is hereby refuted and rebutted for the collection of income tax.

Section 6201 of the Internal Revenue code is derived from section 3182 of Revised Statutes of 1874.The types of taxes authorized by Congress to be assessed are described in crystal clarity in Statutes at Large enacted on Dec 24, 1872, chap. 13, sec.2, vol. 17, page 402 which describes authorized assessment of taxes by the Secretary and apply only to tobacco and distilled spirits. The original intend of Congress has not changed as there has been no amendment to the Statue at Large to date. Since I nor my spouse are not involved with any trade or business having to do with tobacco or distilled spirits for the years in question, NO AUTHORITY TO ASSESS EXISTS.

Liens – Authority to Lien for Taxes rests in Title 26 §6321.Legal presumption of lawful authority of Section 6321 by the IRS, as it applies to Petitioner and his spouse is hereby refuted and rebutted for the collection of Income tax.

The Internal Revenue Code, Section 6321, was derived from the 1954 code, which was derived from section 3670 of the 1939 code. (Joint committee on Taxation, Derivations of Code Sections of the 1939 and 1954 code, 1992, U.S. Govt.).Section 3670 of the 1939 code was derived from section 3186 of the Revised Statutes of 1874 (R.S. 1874) and was termed "Lien for Taxes." This section was derived from the actual Statute passed by Congress on July 13, 1866.This Act identifies only excise taxes on cotton and distilled spirits as subject to lien. This Act was amended by an act dated May 29, 1928, Vol.45 of the Statutes at Large, page 875, Chap. 852 Section 613 to amend the method of lien. The act does not change the taxes authorized by Congress to create a lien per the original Statute at Large of 1866, namely excise taxes on cotton and distilled spirits, NOTHING ELSE. I nor my spouse are not or were not involved in the trade or business of cotton or distilled spirits, there is NO LEGAL BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING A LIEN.

Levy – Authority to levy for taxes rests in Title 26 §6331(a).Legal presumption of lawful authority of Section 6331 by the IRS, as it applies to Petitioner and his spouse is hereby refuted and rebutted for the collection of Income tax.

Section 6331 was derived from the 1954 code, which was derived from Sections 3310, 3660, 3692 and 3700 of the 1939 Code (Joint Committee on Taxation, Derivations of Code Sections of the 1939 and 1954 code, 1992, U.S. Govt.) Section 3690 is the single identifying sections on the species of tax, which can be collected by distraint and was derived from Revised Statutes of 1874 section 3187 and is title "Taxes collectible by distraint." The actual Statute at Large enacted by Congress, which conclusively reveals Congressional intent as to taxes authorized to be collected by levy and distraint was enacted on July 13, 1866 and refers with great specificity only to taxes on cotton and distilled spirits. (See Cap. 184, Section 9, vol.14, pp. 98 and 106 of the Act). The Statutes at Large has not been amended to this date. Therefore the original intent of Congress has not changed. Since I nor my spouse were not involved in the trade or business of cotton or distilled spirits, there is NO LEGAL BASIS NOR AUTHORITY FOR SUBJECTING ME OR MY SPOUSE TO A LEVY.

The above Statutes are in complete harmony with the official Federal Register Index that clearly shows the implementing regulations for Title 26.I invite your attention to the CFR index. The implementing regulation for Title 26 Sections 6201, 6321 and 6331 is Title 27 part 70, which is a regulation that applies only to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and/or the Tax and Trade Bureau. Implementing regulations for Section 7602 of Title 26 resides in Title 27 CFR, parts 29, 46, 70 and 296.Title 26 USC 7608 provides its authority to 27 CFR parts 296 and 70 only.

Consequently, there exists no statutory authority for the Internal Revenue Service to summons, (7608 (b) (2) (A)), assess, lien or collect income taxes by distraint.

The Revenue Officer and the IRS are acting without authority and under color of law, in violation of the laws of the United States and in violation of Petitioner's Constitutional right to due process of law. The legal obligation and burden of proof under 26 USC § 7491 now rests the IRS to demonstrate any documented evidence to the contrary.

All are presumed to be federal citizens?

The  Law of Obligation

"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government." City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

Act To Provide a Government for The District of Columbia

1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia , also known as the Act of 1871.

With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).

The act -- passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War -- was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America. Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.

The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced -- in effect vandalized and sabotage -- when the title was capitalized and the word "for" was changed to "of" in the title.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does is not! Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly "minor" alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans. What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a "privilege" that requires citizens to be licensed. (Passports) By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials.

The following is an expansion and further explanation of the above which you may want to read for your own edification. Whereas my Chapter 9 is a time-map of the major Headlines and Landmines of the 200-years-plus history of America, each subsequent chapter goes into particular details. This section is from Chapter 18, "The Tale of Two Governments, which overall addresses the difference between a democracy and a republic as well as the fact of a federal government and a shadow government practicing under the guise of The Corporation.

The United States Isn't a Country; It's a Corporation! In preparation for stealing America, the puppets of Britain's banking cabal had already created a second government, a Shadow Government designed to manage what the common herd believed was a democracy, but what really was an incorporated UNITED STATES. Together this chimera, this two-headed monster, disallowed the common herd all rights of sui juris. [you, in your sovereignty]

Congress, with no authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia , a ten-mile square parcel of land. WHY and HOW did they do so? The Civil War was, in fact, "little more than a calculated front with fancy footwork by backroom players." Then she adds: "It was also a strategic maneuver by British and European interests (international bankers) intent on gaining a stranglehold on the coffers of America. And, because Congress knew our country was in dire financial straits, certain members of Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie)   There you have the WHY, why members of Congress permitted the international bankers to gain further control of America.

"Then, by passing the Act of 1871, Congress formed a corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, shoved the organic version of the Constitution aside by changing the word 'for' to 'of' in the title. Let me explain: the original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers read: 'The Constitution for the united states of America.' [note that neither the words 'united' nor 'states' began with capital letters] But the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' is a corporate constitution, which is absolutely NOT the same document you think it is. First of all, it ended all our rights of sovereignty [sui juris]. So you now have the HOW, how the international bankers got their hands on THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."

To fully understand how our rights of sovereignty were ended, you must know the full meaning of sovereign: "Chief or highest, supreme power, superior in position to all others; independent of and unlimited by others; possessing or entitled to; original and independent authority or jurisdiction." (Webster).

In short, our government, which was created by and for us as sovereigns -- free citizens deemed to have the highest authority in the land — was stolen from us, along with our rights. Keep in mind that, according to the original Constitution, only We the People are sovereign. Government is not sovereign. The Declaration of Independence say, "...government is subject to the consent of the governed." That's us -- the sovereigns. When did you last feet like a sovereign?

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that the U.S. Government has NOT been subject to the consent of the governed since long before you or I were born. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-milesquare parcel of land known as the District of Columbia. In fact, it has invaded every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction beyond the District of Columbia. You just think it does. "You see, you are ' presumed' to know the law, which is very weird since We the People are taught NOTHING about the law in school. We memorize obscure facts and phrases here and there, like the Preamble, which says, ' We the People...establish this Constitution for the United States of America.' But our teachers only gloss over the Bill of Rights. Our schools (controlled by the corporate government) don't delve into the Constitution at depth. After all, the corporation was established to indoctrinate and ' dumb-down' the masses, not to teach anything of value or importance.

Certainly, no one mentioned that America was sold-out to foreign interests, that we were beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress, or that we were in debt to the international bankers. Yet, for generations, Americans have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay a massive debt that they did not incur. There's an endless stream of things the People aren't told. And, now that you are being told, how do you feel about being made the recipient of a debt without your knowledge or consent? "After passage of the Act of 1871 Congress set a series of subtle and overt deceptions into motion, deceptions in the form of decisions that were meant to sell us down the river. Over time, the Republic took it on the chin until it was knocked down and counted out by a technical KO [knock out]. With the surrender of the people's gold in 1933, the ' common herd' was handed over to illegitimate law. (I' II bet you weren't taught THAT in school.)

"Our corporate form of governance is based on Roman Civil Law and Admiralty, or Maritime, Law, which is also known as the ' Divine Right of Kings' and the ' Law of the Seas' -- another fact of American history not taught in our schools. Actually, Roman Civil Law was fully established in the colonies before our nation began, and then became managed by private international law. In other words, the government -- the government created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 — operates solely under Private International Law, not Common Law, which was the foundation of our Constitutional Republic. "This fact has impacted all Americans in concrete ways. For instance, although Private International Law is technically only applicable within the District of Columbia, and NOT in the other states of the Union, the arms of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES are called ' departments' -- i.e., the Justice Department, the Treasury Department. And those departments affect everyone, no matter where (in what state) they live. Guess what? Each department belongs to the corporation -- to the UNITED STATES.

"Refer to any UNITED STATES CODE (USC). Note the capitalization; this is evidence of a corporation, not a Republic. For example, In Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) ©, it is unequivocally stated that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. Translation: the corporation is NOT a separate and distinct entity; it is not disconnected from the government; it IS the government -- your government.

This is extremely important! I refer to it as the ' corporate EMPIRE of the UNITED STATES,' which operates under Roman Civil Law outside the original Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a corporation? You say you' II ask your Congressperson about this? HA!! "Congress is fully aware of this deception. So it's time that you, too, become aware of the deception. What this great deception means is that the members of Congress do NOT work for us, for you and me. They work for the Corporation, for the UNITED STATES. No wonder we can't get them to do anything on our behalf, or meet or demands, or answer our questions.

"Technically, legally, or any other way you want to look at the matter, the corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY State of the Union (the Republic) beyond the District of Columbia. Let that tidbit sink in, then ask yourself, could this deception have occurred without full knowledge and complicity of the Congress? Do you think it happened by accident? If you do, you're deceiving yourself.

"There are no accidents, no coincidences. Face the facts and confront the truth. Remember, you are presumed to know the law. THEY know you don't know the law or, for that matter, your history. Why? Because no concerted effort was ever made to teach or otherwise inform you. As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full disclosure of all facts. As a slave, you are entitled to nothing other than what the corporation decides to ' give' you.

"Remember also that ' Ignorance of the law is no excuse.' It's your responsibility and obligation to learn the law and know how it applies to you. No wonder the corporation counted on the fact that most people are too indifferent, unconcerned, distracted, or lazy to learn what they need to know to survive within the system. We have been conditioned to let the government do our thinking for us. Now's the time to turn that around if we intend to help save our Republic and ourselves -- before it's too late.

"As an instrument of the international bankers, the UNITED STATES owns you from birth to death. It also holds ownership of all your assets, of your property, even of your children. Think long and hard about all the bills taxes, fines, and licenses you have paid for or purchased. Yes, they had you by the pockets. If you don't believe it, read the 14th Amendment. See how ' free' you really are. Ignorance of the facts led to your silence. Silence is construed as consent; consent to be beneficiaries of a debt you did not incur. As a Sovereign People we have been deceived for hundreds of years; we think we are free, but in truth we are servants of the corporation.

"Congress committed treason against the People in 1871. Honest men could have corrected the fraud and treason. But apparently there weren't enough honest men to counteract the lust for money and power. We lost more freedom than we will ever know, thanks to corporate infiltration of our so-called ' government.' "Do you think that any soldier who died in any of our many wars would have fought if he or she had known the truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his/her life for a corporation? How long will we remain silent? How long will we perpetuate the MYTH that we are free? When will we stand together as One Sovereign People? When will we take back what has been as stolen from the us?

"If the People of America had known to what extent their trust was betrayed, how long would it have taken for a real revolution to occur? What we now need is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We need to change our thinking, and then we can change our world. Our children deserve their rightful legacy -- the liberty our ancestors fought to preserve, the legacy of a Sovereign and Fully Free People."