Next Class: Thursday, December 20, 2007.
7:30 – 9:00PM   wtpfit Class at Grandy's!!!

We The People for Independent Texas
Ken Evans - Class Teacher
3rd Thursday    7:30  9:00 PM

Location:  NE of LBJ Freeway (635) on Northwest Hwy. (Dallas, Texas)
 Actual address:  2155 Northwest Hwy  Garland, Texas
Approximately one mile east of: Fry's Electronics

The following is not part of the Agenda....

Misc RM 6    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.


Cases Right to Travel Brief 

Of course, the McDonald sons have a constitutional right to work for a living; see State v. Polakow's Realty Experts, Inc., 243 Ala. 441, 10 So.2d 461, 462 (1942).

But beyond this constitutional right, they further have the constitutional right to travel which is protected by the U. S. Constitution; see Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U. S. (6 Wall.) 35, 49 (1868)("We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states"); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118 (1958)("The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment"); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 1178 (1966)("The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union"); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1329 (1969) ("This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement"); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 339, 92 S.Ct. 995, 1001 (1972)("...since the right to travel was a constitutionally protected right, 'any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right,1 unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional'"); and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 254, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 1080 (1974)("The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic constitutional freedom"). See also Schachtman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938,941 (D.C.Cir. 1955)("The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law"); Worthy v. Herter, 270 F.2d 905, 908 (D.C.Cir. 1959)("The right to travel is a part of the right to liberty"); Cole v. Housing Authority of City of Newport, 435 F.2d 807, 809 (1st Cir. 1970)("...the right to travel is a fundamental personal right that can be impinged only if to do so is necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest"); King v. New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, 442 F.2d 646, 648 (2nd Cir. 1971)("It would be meaningless to describe the right to travel between states as a fundamental precept of personal liberty and not to acknowledge a correlative constitutional right to travel within a state"); Demiragh v. DeVos, 476 F.2d 403, 405 (2nd Cir. 1973)("...the right to travel... [is] a 'fundamental' one, requiring the showing of a 'compelling' state or local interest to warrant its limitation"); United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 912 (9th Cir. 1973)(" is firmly settled that freedom to travel at home and abroad without unreasonable governmental restriction is a fundamental constitutional right of every American citizen...

At the minimum, governmental restrictions upon freedom to travel are to be weighed against the necessity advanced to justify them, and a restriction that burdens the right to travel 'too broadly and indiscriminately' cannot be sustained"); McLellan v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 545 F.2d 919, 923 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1977)("The Constitutional right to travel is 'among the rights and privileges of National citizenship'"); Andre v. Board of Trustees of Village of Maywood, 561 F.2d 48, 52 (7th Cir. 1977)("The right to travel interstate, although nowhere expressed in the Constitution, has long been recognized as a basic fundamental right"); Wellford v. Battaglia, 343 F.Supp. 143, 147 (D.Del. 1972)("The right to travel... is a right to intrastate as well as interstate migration"); Costa v. Bluegrass Turf Service, Inc., 406 F.Supp. 1003, 1007 (E.D.Ken. 1975)("...pure administrative convenience, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for an enactment which ... restricts the right to travel"); Coolman v. Robinson, 452 F.Supp. 1324, 1326 (N.D.Ind. 1978)("The right to travel is a very old and well established constitutional right"); Tetalman v. Holiday Inn, 500 F.Supp. 217, 218 ( N.D.Ga. 1980)(the "constitutionally protected right to travel ... is basically the right to travel unrestricted by unreasonable government interference or regulation"); Bergman v. United States, 565 F.Supp. 1353, 1397 ( W.D. Mich. 1983)("The right to travel interstate is a basic, fundamental right under the Constitution, its origins premised upon a variety of constitutional provisions"); Lee v. China Airlines, Ltd., 669 F.Supp. 979, 982 ( C.D.Cal. 1987)("...the right to travel interstate is fundamental"); and Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F.Supp. 1551, 1578-79 (S.D.Fla. 1992).

This right to travel is also a constitutional right under our state constitution embodied within the "liberty" provision of Art. I, §1; see Joseph v. Randolph, 71 Ala. 499, 504-05 (1882)("There can be no denial of the general proposition that every citizen of the United States, and every citizen of each State of the Union, as an attribute of personal liberty, has the right, ordinarily, of free transit from, or through the territory of any State.

This freedom of egress or ingress is guaranteed to all by the clearest implications of the Federal, as well as of the State constitution").

This constitutional right to travel is widely recognized; see State v. Wylie, 516 P.2d 142, 145-46 (Alaska 1973)("...the freedom to travel throughout the United States 'uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement' is a fundamental personal right under the United States Constitution ... [and] 'any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional'"); People v. Horton, 14 CalApp.3d 930, 92 Cal.Rptr. 666, 668 (1971)("...the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference ... is a fundamental constitutional right"); In re White, 97 Cal.App.3d 141, 158 Cal.Rptr . 562, 566-67 (1979)("...there is a constitutional right to intrastate travel"); Heninger v. Charnes, 200 Colo. 194, 613 P.2d 884, 887 (1980)("...the right to travel interstate is without question a fundamental right under the United States Constitution"); Florida Motor Lines, Inc. v. Ward, 102 Fla. 1105, 137 So. 163, 167 (Fla. 1931)("The right of a citizen to use the highways, including the streets of the city or town, for travel and to transport his goods, is an inherent right which cannot be taken from him, but it is subject to reasonable regulation in the interest of the public good"); Hall v. King, 266 So.2d 33, 34 (Fla. 1972)(the right to travel "may be restricted only for a compelling state interest"); Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22, 25 (1929) ("Even the Legislature has no power to deny a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience"); People v. Chambers, 32 Ill.App.3d 444, 335 N.E.2d 612, 617 (1975); Sturrup v. Mahan, 290 N.E.2d 64, 68 (Ind.App. 1972)("...each citizen, adult or minor, has a fundamental right to move freely from State to State and from City to City within the State"); Swift v. City of Topeka, 43 Kan. 671, 23 P. 1075, 1076 (1890)("This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen"); Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589, 522 P.2d 1291,1301 (1974) ("...freedom to travel throughout this state and this nation is a fundamental right"); Town of Milton v. Civil Service Comm., 365 Mass. 368, 312 N.E.2d 188, 191 n. 2 (1974); State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 95 N.W.2d 6, 13 (1959)("'s inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is curtailed if he may be unreasonably kept off the highways maintained by him as a citizen and taxpayer ;... 'the freedom to make use of one's own property, here a motor vehicle, as a means of getting about from place to place, whether in pursuit of business or pleasure, is a 'liberty' which under the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be denied or curtailed by a state without due process of law.'

In any event, the right of a citizen to drive a motor vehicle upon the highways is to be safeguarded against the whim or caprice of police or administrative officers"); Davis v. Davis, 297 Minn. 187, 210 N.W.2d 221, 223 (1973)("Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution, and the freedom to travel includes the freedom to enter and abide in any state"); Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, 195 Miss. 226, 12 So.2d 784, 787 (1943)("The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety....

The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights, and while the exercise thereof may be reasonably regulated by legislative act in pursuance of the police power of the State, and although those powers are broad, they do not rise above those privileges which are imbedded in the constitutional structure"); State v. Johnson, 75 Mon. 240, 243 P. 1073, 1078 (1926)("...while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.

For the latter purpose no person has a vested right in the use of the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the Legislature may grant or withhold in its discretion"); Donnelly v. City of Manchester, 111 N.H. 50, 274 A.2d 789, 791 (1971)("The right of every citizen to live where he chooses and to travel freely not only within the state but across its borders is a fundamental right"); Gow v. Bingham, 107 N.Y.S. 1011, 1014 (1907)("...the right of personal liberty ... includes ... absolute freedom to every one to go where and when he pleases"); State v. Dobbins, 277 N.C. 484, 178 S.E.2d 449, 456 (1971)("...the right to travel upon the public streets of a city is a part of every individual's liberty"); Fraternal Order of Police, Youngstown Lodge v. Hunter, 36 Ohio Misc. 103, 303 N.E.2d 103, 106 (1973)("Any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of a constitutional right (freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction and inside frontiers as well) unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional"); Cummins v. Jones, 79 Or. 276, 155 P. 171, 172 (1916); Josephine County School District No. 7 v. Oregon School Activities Assoc., 15 Or.App. 185, 515 P.2d 431, 437 (1973)("...the right to travel intrastate is a right protected from discriminatory regulation to the same extent as is his right to freedom of interstate movement"); Henry v. Cherry & Webb, 30 R.I. 13, 73 A. 97, 107 (1909)("...the right of personal liberty include[s] .. the right to go where a persons please[s]"); Berberian v. Lussier, 87 R.I. 226, 139 A.2d 869, 872 (1958);  Knowlton v. Board of Law Examiners, 513 S.W.2d 788, 790-91 (Tenn. 1974)("The right to travel freely among the states is a fundamental, constitutionally protected right"); Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 583 ( 1930)("The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety...

It is not a mere privilege..."); Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wash. 657, 168 P. 516, 518 (1917)("They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary right of a citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or main instrumentality of a business for private gain.

The former is a common right, the latter an extraordinary use"); Eggert v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 840, 505 P.2d 801, 804 (1973)("The right to travel is a right applicable to intrastate as well as interstate commerce... Both travel within and between states is protected"); Ex parte Dickey, 76 W.Va. 576, 85 S.E. 781, 782 (1915)("The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of the one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain...

The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but, as to the latter, its power is broader"); and Ervin v. State, 41 Wis.2d 194, 163 N.W.2d 207, 210 (1968)("The freedom to move about is a basic right of citizens under our form of government").
1 The Court in Dunn also declared that the "The right to travel is an 'unconditional personal right,' a right whose exercise may not be conditioned," Id., at 341.



SSA's General Trust Fund
Towards a better understanding of a taxing situation...

We discovered a solution to some taxes in the United States of America.

This solution is the direct result of understanding what "The Social Security Administration" (SSA) is and what it does.

What it is:
It is a sub-part of the corporation known as, "The United States Government." Congress formed The United States Government as a Corporation in an Act called, "The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871." That means we are not talking about the national government of the United States of America. We are talking about the private corporation named, "The United States Government" (Corp U.S.). It is also known as the "UNITED STATES" and "US"

What it does:
When, for whatever reason, a person determines that they want a Social Security Account (SSA), they make an application to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for such an account. The SSA then creates a trust [trust. A right of property, real or personal, held by one party for the benefit of another. As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 1352.] and makes an account for that trust in SSA's General Trust Fund. That account number is known as the "Social Security Number" (SSN). They [the SSA] make the applicant the trustee, AND, they name the trust with a title that sounds like the trustee's name, but is spelled in all CAPITAL LETTERS. In other words, at your request, the trust SSA creates for you is given an account number in the General Trust Fund and [it] becomes a 'taxpayer' in the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.). It abides [is, or exists,] in the District of Columbia from the date it was created - forever! Even though you [the applicant] may reside elsewhere, when you [the applicant] act as trustee to that trust you act there – there as in Washington D.C.

Notice, when people are born, their parents give them names, which names are proper nouns (proper nouns are spelled with the initial [first] letter of each word capitalized, the remaining letters lower case). The trust that the SSA creates is given a name. A name which name sounds [idem sonans Sounding the same or alike; having the same sound. As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 670.] just like the applicant's name, except that it is spelled with all CAPITAL LETTERS. That name is a title — a title to a trust. When anyone uses that title, they are using the name of the trust. John Doe, man / JOHN DOE trust.

Think about it! When a person goes in to get a job with a company, which person is applying for the job, the trust or the man? If it is the trust, then when the trust is paid for its services, the pay will be made in the trust's name and/or SSN. If it is the man, then when the man is paid for his services, the pay will be made in the name of the man and the SSN will not be used. Look at the check! Is it in the trust's name [and/or relating SSN] or is it only in the man's name?

When a man opens a bank account, does he open it in the name of the trust or does he open the account in his own name? When he buys a house or gets a loan does he use the trust's name [and/or relating SSN] or his own name only? The answer is, if he used the trust's name [and/or relating SSN], it is the trust that opens the bank account or buys the house.

Notice where the action takes place. Though the [natural man] trustee may live, or reside, in some other location, the trust exists in Washington, D.C. Therefore, the action takes place in Washington, D.C. the trust's "situs." [situs. Lat. Situation; location. As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 1244.] In other words, Washington, D.C., is the place where the trust's legal or taxing actions take place. When the trust acts, it acts in Washington, D.C., only -- regardless of where the trustee is when the action takes place.

Now, ask yourself two questions: First, Are you a federal employee? and second, When you perform an action for someone, do you expect to be paid for it? Remember your answers. They are the keys to unraveling the tax questions presented by most protesting taxes and the solutions givens by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS.)

When taxed, we must remember that the person [person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statue term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 1028.] being taxed is the person employed in the tax jurisdiction. We asked the question before, Who was employed? If the person employed was the trust, then the proper IRS form to file is, Form 1041. If the person that was employed was a flesh and blood man or woman, then the IRS says the proper form to file is Form 1040.

However, if you look at the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) number in the top right hand corner of the IRS forms, you will find a number required by the Paper Reduction Act. That number is required to be cross-referenced to the code section that necessitates the use of the form and that has been OMB authorized for such use. The cross-reference index shows the Form 1040 is allowed to be used in accordance with a code section within Title 26 § [section] 31, which section only applies to federal employees. That means that only federal employees can use Form 1040. Therefore, if you use Form 1040, you are claiming [under penalty of perjury] to be a federal employee. If you are not a federal employee and you use Form 1040, you are lying to the IRS, which is a crime according to U.S. Criminal Code.

What happens is, when people act as trustee of a trust they are protected by the corporation sole nature of the position trustee. However, when a trustee begins to receive benefits from the trust, outside of the trustee's fiduciary fees, the trustee creates a general partnership with the trust. General partners are equally, collectively and severably liable for the obligations of all of the other general partners within a partnership.

Now, let's put it all together! SSA created a trust with a SSN and if that trust was employed it would constitute a federal employee, not because Corp. U.S. is the employer, but because of who the trust's creator is. If you are a general partner with a federal employee, then you are equally, collectively and severably liable for their obligations. When you buy groceries with funds from the SSN trust, it appears that you are a general partner with the trust. If you sign documents for the trust, and you do not designate that you are acting as the trustee ( i.e. your hand signature, TTEE), then you have created a general partnership with the trust. Therefore, when the trust owes a mandatory tax - so do its general partners. IRS has no authority to deal with flesh and blood men and women other than federal employees (Form 1040) and Non-Resident Aliens or U.S. citizens that owe a tax in Puerto Rico (Form 2555). If you have created a general partnership with the trust, then you owe any taxes the trust is liable for just as much as the trust does and you are just as much a federal employee as the trust is. Therefore, a proper form to file would be a Form 1040.

Tax Free:
What if the trust was to file its own taxes? Even if you had a general partnership, any tax obligation would have already been met and there would be no tax obligation remaining for the [general] partner. The proper form for a partnership to file is a Form 1041. About all there is to calculating a Form 1041 is that you take the funds that were in the trust's accounts at the beginning of the year and you subtract them from the funds in them at the end of the year and the result is the net gain or loss. Then you subtract the net gain or loss from the year's increase, which give you the amount spent by the trust.

Now, back to the questions we asked, are you a federal employee? Answer? NO! Then a Form 1040 is the wrong form to file. When you perform an action for someone, do you expect to be paid for it? Answer? YES! Then, ask yourself, what was your wage? I expect that your wage will have been an all expense paid wage. Now, go back to the amount spent by the trust and notice that all of the funds spent by the trust were spent on the trustee. Remember back to the time when you got the jobs you performed for the trust? Did you not plan on using the funds you generated from the trust to meet all of your expenses?

Then, notice that the funds spent by the trust were all your wages! That means the amount spent by the trust goes on the Form 1041 at the line designated for Fiduciary Fees. If you calculate the form, you will likely notice that there are no taxes owed by the trust. That means that even if there were a general partnership between the trust and the trustee, there is no tax obligation for the [general] partner!

The only real problem left now is that most of the people, and the computer at IRS think you owe a tax. That's because when SSA creates the trusts, they do it constructively (without an indenture) according to statute. We solve that problem by creating a proper indenture and by then sending that indenture to SSA.

"Constructive Trust"
"A trust raised by construction of law, or arising by operation of law, as distinguished from an express trust. Wherever the circumstances of a transaction are such that the person who takes the legal estate in property cannot also enjoy the beneficial interest without necessarily violating some established principle of equity, the court will immediately raise a constructive trust, and fasten it upon the conscience of the legal owner, so as to convert him into a trustee for the parties who in equity are entitled to the beneficial enjoyment."

"Constructive trusts" do not arise by agreement or from intention, but by operation of law, and fraud, active or constructive, is their essential element. Actual fraud is not necessary, but such a trust will arise whenever circumstances under which property was acquired made it inequitable that it should be retained by him who holds the legal title. Constructive trusts have been said to arise through the application of the doctrine that equity regards and treats as done what in good conscience ought to be done, and such trusts are also known as "trusts ex maleficio" or "ex delicto" or "involuntary trusts" and their forms and varieties are practically without limit, being raised by courts of equity whenever it becomes necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Union Guardian Trust Co. v. Emery, 292 Mich. 394, 290 N.W. 841, 845. Black's 6th Ed.

"A legal entity created by a grantor for the benefit of designated beneficiaries...the trustee holds a fiduciary responsibility to manage the trust's corpus assets and income for the economic benefit of all of the beneficiaries."

"Essential elements of trust are designated beneficiary and trustee, fund sufficiently identified to enable title to pass to trustee, and actual delivery to trustee with intention of passing title." City Bank Farmers' Trust Co. v. Charity Organization Soc. Of City of New York. 238 App. Div. 720, 265 N.Y.S. 267. Black's, 6th Ed.

"Trust Indenture"
"The document which contains the terms and conditions which govern the conduct of the trustee and the rights of the beneficiaries. Commonly used when a corporation floats bonds." Black's, 6th Ed.

Trust Indenture Act
"Federal Act (1939) designed to protect investors in certain types of bonds by requiring that the trust indenture be approved by the SEC and include certain protective clauses and exclude certain exculpatory clauses, and that trustees be independent of the issuing company. 15 U.S.C.A. § 77 aaa et. seq."



SEDITION BY SYNTAX  by Ralph B. Schwan
Are you a United States Citizen? Be careful; I'll tell you something that the Untied States Government never will: That's a trick question. But then the United States Government is a "trick" government and it will ask you that trick question quite often.

Better to put the question like this: Are you a United States citizen or a Citizen of the United States? Do you think they are the same thing? Your education via government schools serves you poorly. Recall some fourth grade grammar; then check the Constitution.

Let's use a simple example: "...the house of Mr. Jones." We'll rewrite it, "Mr. Jones' house. See the apostrophe? The relationship between Mr. Jones and his house. In most words you'd add both an apostrophe and an "s", but when a word ends in "s" you needn't add another. Ah yes, you do remember that rule. Then a Citizen of the United States could be rewritten as United States' Citizen, but never United States Citizen. Right? Right! You graduate to fifth grade!

More grammar. Examine the term "United States." Is it singular (one thing) or plural (more than one thing)? By the Constitution it is plural! We know that because the terms "their" and "them" were used as pronouns referring to the United States, i.e. Treason against the "United States" is "adhering to their enemies", "levying war against them". You probably memorized the names of the united States (`states united' or 'states in union' or 'Union states') in fifth grade — boring!

But the term "United States" is also used in the singular sense. It is one nation. (...indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all.)

A nation is a natural thing. This one exists because of the boundaries of the states.

It is never defined in other terms. The term "United States" is a geographical name - one thing, one nation. The United States are one union; the united States in one nation.
Confused? You isn't? I are!

Because "United States" is a noun ending in "s" it can be either singular or plural. "Jones' house could mean the house of one person (Mr. Jones) or many persons (Mr. & Mrs. Jones and their 12 kids). But in either case, as we learned in fourth grade, the apostrophe must follow the "s".

Were you born in the United States? The preposition "in" shows that "United States" in that question is a place, a geographical place named "United States". It's singular. You can only be born in one place; so United States is one place. When "United States" is singular it refers to a natural place, a nation, a land.

(Bonus question: Where you born in the United States or within the united States?)

When "United States" is plural it refers to the "union" of the states. Unions are things "Un-natural", they are things, not places. Unions, as WE the People said, need to be perfected, nations can't be perfected. Unions, all unions, exist by agreement. Nations exist naturally.

The only requisite for citizenship is "place" of birth. Every person is a natural born citizen of some nation. Nature is so important to citizenship, that persons wishing to change citizenship must be NATURALized. For those who appreciate 2000 year old terms, "naturalized" means "born again". But that's not important. Just remember that original citizenship exist because of places, not agreements.

If you were born in the United States (singular) you are automatically a citizen of the United States, the United States, one place, one nation. Would you also like to join the "Union", the United States (plural), "them"? Sorry, only states can join this Union. People can't join.

At least that's the way it was to be. In 1867, "United States" was either the name of a geographical place or the name of a union of states. In 1868 a new meaning was created — a third meaning — the fourteenth amendment accomplished this feat. It begins like this: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

The problem is that the amendment used the term "United States", first in the singular, geographic, national sense (in the United States) and then in the plural, union agreement sense (jurisdiction thereof)—but it didn't make the word "jurisdictions thereof'. But that would have been quite illogical, for places don't possess jurisdiction. The Union had jurisdiction over the states, but not over people and We the People had jurisdiction over the Union - or so we said. Under 1867 definitions of the term "United States" the amendment made no sense.

Rather than admit to the foolishness of the amendment, a new meaning was given to the "United States". It became a TITLE. This meaning was unimagined by the founders of the original constitution. They took great care in it to grant no title (title of nobility) to the government of the United States. It used no Titles. The best example of that fact is that the "supreme" Court is described with a small "s". The Constitution "entitled" nothing. "We the People" is the only title used in the document! We the People had had our fill of kings and nobles of kings. You and I were going to be the [only] nobility of this nation. Our title was our birthright, it was not granted by the government. It is not a privilege —it is a right!

But the fourteenth amendment, while it established a title, did not eliminate or change the prior meanings of the term "United States" as it was used in the original constitution.

Hence, since the year 1868, the term "United States" has three meanings:
the geographical name of a nation,
the name of a union of states, which in turn define the nation, and
a title of nobility.

The first is singular and natural; the second, plural and created by agreement; the third, singular and granted.

But wait. The government may grant no title of nobility. True, True. The government of the United States may not, but you can!

As a nobleman you can grant title – only you. Plus you can abdicate your title; you can trade it for a new one. But you can only trade downward as the title you're born with is the highest. You can trade your high title for a low one, that's a right you possess.

It's easy to do. Far too easy!

All you need do is claim that your new title is "United States Citizen" (no apostrophe). Do that and you'll instantly show that you are a person "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. You'll use "United States" as a title preceding the word "citizen" and prove that you believe that the "United States" is something (someone) other than a geographical description or the name of a union of states. In claiming that, it has jurisdiction greater than your own, you grant it TITLE. A "person" who holds the highest title of a nation and subjects people to his/her jurisdiction is a KING / QUEEN / SOVEREIGN.
Have you ever claimed the title "United States Citizen"? Got a Social Security card?

You did it. How about a passport? Same title. Passports and social security are entitlements (en-TITLE-ments). They are granted by the high noble, to the lesser nobles. Entitlements are granted by the "United States Citizens" (no apostrophe). This government is a government of title. It exists side-by-side with the constitutionally described "government of the United States".

Want proof? Take a look at anything possessed by this government. On the object you find a label or sign. It says: Property of United States Government. It owns more property than any feudal king ever dreamed of possessing, but then it has more subjects than any feudal king.

As a person of low title under the United States Government, you are bound to obey, not only law, but a code as well. Remember how feudal knights had to obey a code — a code of chivalry? Well, the "code" a United States citizen is bound to is called (entitled) United States Code" (notice, no apostrophe.) Originally this was called the "Code of Law of the United States", but it quickly was filled with so much non-law that the name was changed, so that persons claiming low title would know that it was for them to obey.

You didn't realize that? Maybe you don't deserve your title!

At the same time, another problem arose. The courts described in the Constitution had jurisdiction (judicial power) in matters arising under the Constitution, treaties and laws of the United States, made under THEIR authority. Plural — "Union." If violators of the code were to be punished by the courts, or if the courts were to hear any matter under the "code", a new court system needed to be established. A court system for persons of low title; these would be Courts of Title.

The titles of the Courts? "United States District Court", "United States Court of Appeals". The courts described by the Constitution would be "district Courts of the United States"; "appeals Court of the United States"; "supreme Court of the United States."

It would appear that since both titled courts and constitutional courts must now exist, the judges must sit in either. They hold two jobs.

You determine which court by addressing your petition to one or the other. You pick. The titled courts are no place for a freeman, a Citizen of the United States'. These courts have a zillion rules (published in the "code"), right down to the kind of paper and the style of typewriter you must use. The courts of the United States' are quite the opposite, having no published rules. These courts are of Law and for Justice. Trivial things like paper and type style have no bearing on either.

If you are a United States Citizen, you'll have to appear before a court of title, at least in civil matters under the code. Jurisdiction in criminal matters is properly still left to "district Courts of the United States". Lucky criminals. Counterfeiters and pirates fare far better than persons of low title! Well, they should, for their court follows Law and pursues Justice, while a United States District Court only follows "code."

Titled courts are harsh in their administration of the code for they are bound to nothing else. These courts will gladly take the word of a United States Attorney over the word of a petty United States citizen.
In courts of title rank has its privileges. These courts owe no allegiance to the Constitution as they need not rule by the Laws of the United States of America. They follow a Code; they obey their master, the United States Government. These courts, as did the infamous Crown Courts of England, exist only for the benefit of the peerage, and, unfortunately, often to the detriment of the freemen of the land.

This "dual Court" system is probably the only reason for what, at first glance, appears to be contradictory "case law." While a reasonable mind can understand the potential for divergent court holdings from state to state, the contradictions in "federal" court holdings is quite troubling. Ever wonder how the "supreme" Court can overturn itself?

It likely does not.

But one can quickly see that the decisions of courts of title or "United States Courts", would oft times conflict with the rulings made by Constitutional "courts of the United States". One would hear only matters brought by titled Citizens, the other by freemen. Since the decisions are published in one volume, with no distinction made between the courts, case law seems to contradict itself.
Should you find this "dual court" concept a bit far fetched, examine the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), Sections 7402(b) and 7604(a). You'll find these sections grant the authority to two different courts to enforce summons. The sections are identical, word-for-word, in every respect except one — one gives the authority to "United States District Courts" and the other to "district courts of the United States".
Why both? Income taxes are excise taxes. They are an excise / occupation tax on a privilege. The privilege is your title, United States citizen. A "first party" summons is made upon a titled person. But a "third party" summons might be made upon anyone, titled or not. Thus, one court must enforce the one; the other court must enforce the other.

Since a titled individual is required by code to keep books, records, and papers, the court of title can demand the delivery of those documents, without particularly describing them, without describing the place to be searched, without the presentment of accusation by a party under oath or affirmation. Should a titled person fail to deliver up such documents, he'll find himself in jail for contempt--not contempt of court--contempt of code.

A court of title may jail him for failing to produce records which no one has even claimed exist! He'll be released from jail when he "creates" the documents which a titled person is required to possess.
No where is the dual court / dual government system more apparent than in tax matters. At common law, titled individuals (but not the king) are bound by an oath of allegiance in order to be entitled. Thus, income tax forms must be signed only by persons under oath, persons who are subject to the "penalties of perjury". Signing such a form is a confession that you hold title. The form is to be signed by "United States citizen".

Hence, a signed tax-form is always introduced as evidence in a "criminal" tax prosecution to show that the defendant has claimed a title.

Perhaps you've heard that tax deductions are granted by the "grace" of the United States Government. It's true. Grace is a favor or privilege. Kings dispense grace. Kings may deny grace. What is given in grace may be denied. IRS will often deny tax deductions. Look as we might, it is impossible to discover where in the Constitution the government was authorized to dispense or deny "grace."

But the government of the United States of America doesn't dispense or deny grace - the United States Government does. It dispenses and denies grace to its subjects the United States citizens. This king wears no crown for it has no head. It can't be killed; it can't be harmed. It can't even be sued, unless it first "grants" its permission. It's hardly the same government which we demanded would always allow us to petition for redress of grievances!

This government-king has existed for over 100 years. At first it was quite innocuous, for it had very few subjects. But when it tricked We the People into signing away our birthright via reams of forms its powers became immense. Today this government of title is so powerful that the original, constitutional government of the United States of America becomes lost in its shadow.

There are still two governments. One asks that you should serve it – the other only seeks to serve you. The government of title will entice you with promises of grants and entitlements: welfare, social security, low interest loans, grants of exemption, and grants of deductions. But it can give you nothing. It exists only by your authority, your consent. (See Declaration of Independence, 1776) It can't give you anything that you didn't already possess. Try as it might to deceive you, it exists by your grace–not the other way around.

Do us both a favor — withdraw and deny your grace. Be a Citizen of the United States of America again. Stop trying to serve two masters - you can't do it. Stop pretending that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. You won't be unless you choose to be. Even the greatest king is only a king by the consent of his subjects. Stop being a subject. Be a free man!

Refuse to claim that you are a "United States citizen." Deny jurisdiction to titled courts. And by all means, stop calling this king by his title –"United States Government."
Ralph Schwan   A.D. 2004



Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association. 
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".


The following web pages will provide much more information:

RM 01    RM 02    RM 03    RM 04    RM 05    RM 06    RM 07    RM 08    RM 09    RM 10    RM 11    RM 12    RM 13    RM 14    RM 15    RM 16    RM 17    RM 18    RM 19    RM 20    RM 21    RM 22    RM 23    RM 24    RM 25    RM 26    RM 39    RM 40   
We appreciate and thank all those people who contributed this information
and made it available to all who will take the time to review it and possibly use it.

We make no quarantees and no assurances as to any of its viability.
It is placed here for educational, reference, and information purposes only.