Is the United States a for-profit corporation?

A popular theory is that the United States is a for-profit corporation similar to McDonald's. A variety of arguments are used to try to support this claim. We intend to investigate those arguments, but first we need to get some fundamentals out of the way.

What is a country? What is a corporation?

A country, or nation-state, is a "public body corporate", a lawful entity consisting of various members. Countries are not incorporated with any superior entity – they are sovereign, answerable only to the political, economic and military force of other nations who dare oppose. In general, nations voluntarily follow principles of public international law in the interest of peace, order and mutual benefit.

A standard corporation, on the other hand, similarly consists of various members but is incorporated into, under and subject to a nation-state or state and its laws. The nature and necessity of such corporations is explored at length in Blackstone's Commentaries: Of Corporations.

People, men and women, human beings, whether citizens or not are not considered corporations under law, but natural persons. It is not possible to appear in law individually except as a natural person.

What is the United States?

The United States is a sovereign state with the Constitution as the foundational document and supreme law of the land. The United States entity, the same you see as a party in court cases, etc., was created implicitly by the Constitution. The United States is the highest entity that exists or can exist in the United States. The United States itself is not a standard corporation incorporated under any nation's laws (or its own), however the US may form and make use of various standard corporations internally.

Now that we're done with the formalities, let's debunk some pseudo-legal claims!

28 USC § 3002 Definition

The following definition is often claimed to be proof-positive that the United States is a corporation:

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

First we need to understand the basics of statutory word definition. If you read the top of the section carefully you will see the words "As used in this chapter". That means those definitions only apply within that chapter of the USC, which we see here. At a glance it covers about 124 sections out of many thousand in the USC. Moreover, the definitions only apply in federal proceedings that fall under that chapter. The same definition does not apply and is not used anywhere else.

So yes, for the purposes of that chapter, United States is defined as a Federal corporation. This argument is busted based on the scope of the definition alone – clearly something that applies in just one chapter of federal code can't override the entire nation. We can look further, though, to find the exact intent and reasoning behind the particular definition. From the description of the chapter we see it's related to federal debt collection procedure, which is a start.

How can we quickly find out more? We can search Google Scholar to see what the courts say. Clicking the first case and checking footnotes 8 and 9 sheds much light on the topic. Apparently the definition is related to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the intent is to limit the application to dealings with federal entities.

In passing the FDCPA, Congress evinced a clear intent to exclude private transactions — debts created under (and thus governed by) state law, and to which the United States was not an original party.

That explains that!

The District of Columbia

Some believe that the creation of a municipal or state-style government subject to Congress in the District of Columbia somehow changed the government and made everything, including the Constitution (the supreme law of the land, remember) subject to that corporation. This would be quite impossible and makes no sense. The created cannot supersede its creator. No legislation from Congress, no ruling from the Supreme Court, no Executive Order can destroy or replace the Constitution or the United States.

Where do the profits go?

Revenue collected by the United States is managed by the United States Department of the Treasury which has a number of responsibilities. Collected monies remain in the Treasury for use within the nation. Money cannot be removed except in accordance with US law under the Constitutional framework.

What say you? Do you think the United States is a "for-profit corporation"?

  • 72
    Shares

121 comments

  • 28 USC Chapter 176 is about federal debt collection procedures for civil courts.

    28 USC 3001
    "(a)In
    General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), the [1] chapter provides
    the exclusive civil procedures for the United States—
    (1) to recover a judgment on a debt; or
    (2) to obtain, before judgment on a claim for a debt, a remedy in connection with such claim."

    28 USC 3002 [definitions]
    "(15) “United States” means—
    (A) a Federal corporation;
    (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
    (C) an instrumentality of the United States."

    It means what organizations may sue to collect a debt owed to the US.

    To
    just use 3002(15)(A) in isolation is to mislead people into thinking
    that the US was simply a corporation. It isn't, it never has been.

    • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

      Fun video, but you've missed the part where the United States Corporation Company is not even slightly related to central banking or the government of the USA. It's a private company that chose "United States Corporation Company" as its name. The descriptions you read out of their Articles of Incorporation may sound sinister, but they are entirely consistent with their stated business, which is acting as an agent for other businesses. Look up "registered agent" to see what they do. It isn't even a federal corporation, because it hasn't been incorporated by Congress. It's a private company doing business separately in (almost?) every state, which seems to have changed its name to Corporation Services Company. This whole video is a laugh and a half.

      • Obviously you don't understand the beginnings of the fraud being perpetrated in the U.S. of course they are not related to the central banking cartel , that is a separate entity altogether , The federal reserve is owned by the Rothschilds and their cronies ,of which the FBI (federal ) was originally set up to protect the interest of . .The whole point is our government IS A private corporation posing as a government .Almost every town you drive into has a sign telling you when they were incorporated , they are merely sub corporations of " Big Brother " .. Look into it , being a corporation make you subject to the coporate rules of the state . It is amazing to me how someone can be presented with the evidence and still gloss over the truth from a mind controlled perspective .You deny the fact that The United States Corporation , is a privately owned corporation acting as your government .Read this article, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/the-worlds-goldkeeper the reason other countries rely on the federal reserve to hold their gold is they are all under the control of the same private company . You still don't think so ? Here Alan Greenspan , in this short videohttp://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Alan+Greenspan+Quotes&&view=detail&mid=A0B57D8EE62A380335BEA0B57D8EE62A380335BE&FORM=VRDGAR , tells you the Federal reserve is a separate entity .If the federal reserve was a government agency senate would bot need to pass a bill to audit them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNuHRyip3iA .

        • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

          Your original post shows me that you don't know the difference between a private corporation and the corporate nature of a government. This one shows me that you've fallen for every conspiracy theory you've ever read, and probably blame the Illuminati every time two leaves fall at the same time.

          Do you actually have any evidence for any of these claims, or just more assertions that completely ordinary facts can only be explained by goofy theories? I've already addressed here why governments must necessarily be incorporated, and I'll explain it again here:

          The fact that governments are incorporated does not mean that they are commercial entities, that they operate under secret rules, that they are run by Reptilian executives trading it on the intergalactic stock exchange (clearly orchestrated by the Space Jews), that the collateral is people, or that you've discovered some ghastly secret they're trying to conceal from the world. Governments are incorporated. They're corporations. Bingo A-1 Yuppers, they're corporations, and that beats the hell out of the alternative. In the context of the English language and our understanding of entities in law for the last few centuries, almost any kind of government you can imagine must be a corporation. Here's why:

          A state (with the exception of horrifying monarchies where the entire state is the personal property of an individual) is not a natural person. It has no parents, it has no signature, it has no body. The world can be a harsh place if you don't have a body. You can't walk into a bank and open an account, you can't walk into a courthouse to sue or be sued, you can't discuss the terms of a contract and agree to it, you can't do much of anything. Bodies are important things. The word "incorporation" is related to these crucial bodies, through the Latin word "corpus," which simply means body. The term incorporation refers to the creation of a legal entity without a body. By "incorporating," we all agree to give it a fictional body and to accept its ability to exist in law through representatives and agents. For the federal and state governments of the United States, this incorporation was performed with the adoption of constitutions. These constitutions don't mention the word "corporation" or "incorporate," because they don't need to. It's simply a consequence of creating a government that 1) is not synonymous with an individual and 2) exists as a legal entity. It's very important for governments to be legal entities, because otherwise it would be impossible for them to sue or be sued, it would be impossible for them to have accounts and pay into or out of them, it would be impossible for them to employ agents and officers to administer the business of government, and it would be impossible for them to enter contracts.

          This winds up giving you three choices. Which of the following do you prefer?

          1. A government that doesn't exist in law

          2. A government run as a sole proprietorship where taxes are paid directly to the head of state's personal bank account

          3. A government run as a corporation

          • Actualy none of the above , it is not that simple and it depends upon what level of government you are talking about .Until Dun and Bradstreet closed its site to the general public , you could look up the Duns number of any court in the country . Let me tell you Dun and Bradstreet ratings are all about how much profit a company is turning .The truth is the government is being run so private companies of its constituents are making huge profits . Take Dick Cheneys company Haliburton and the Iraq war . The war was run on a no bid basis , with Cheneys company getting the contract , while he was active as Vice President . There are eye witness accounts of Haliburton s http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6028 Brown and Root division running convoys of empty trucks through some of the most dangerous areas of Iraq and billing the government by the mile , and the american taxpayers footing the bill !You could also look into the fact that Harry Rieds land trust owns land all around the now notorious Bundy ranch . And reports that his trust has acquired much land in the American west , and looking into the files on many of the deals there is no record of the transactions just the transfer of the title which should only be if a married woman inherited land from her father .I notice not one comment on evidence of the fed being a private company , I take it you acquiesce .

          • The vast majority of profits of the Fed are returned to the national treasury, because it's a public institution: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/federal-reserve-made-47-4-billion-in-2009/
            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/business/economy/feds-2012-profit-was-88-9-billion.html
            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/business/economy/fed-transferred-79-6-billion-in-earnings-to-the-treasury-last-year.html
            "the Fed’s enormous investment campaign to stimulate economic growth continued to generate windfall profits for taxpayers"

          • What the shill media outlet The Times is not telling you is the Fed normally charges interest on the money it loans out . If this were not the case , why would the treasury continually go into debt by selling treasury bonds to foreign entities such as china ? The press is not giving you the full story which is typical of them .http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm The U.S. went some 400 billion into debt just on the interest due in 2015 , something is not adding up . The Times tells you the Fed had a 100 billion in profit , yet the government , by its own admission ,owes 400 billion just in interest on its debt !

          • 75 Congressional Record 12595-12603 " The Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned , locally controlled corporations " Lewis v U.S., 680 F2d 1239,1241 (1982)

            " From a legal standpoint these banks are private corporations ,organized under a special act of Congress , namely , The Federal Reserve Act .They are not in the strict sense of the word , ' Government Banks ' " = William P.G. Harding ,Governer of the Federal Reserve Board .( 1921)
            Source " Fruit From A Poisonous Tree " Melvin Stamper JD pg 99
            " Give me control of a nations money , and I care not who makes its laws " Mayer Amstel Rothschild

          • It has gotten quiet around here ! I was thinking of you guys this morning as I was reading these . Just to open you eyes a bit further .

            "The United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act… and declared [so] by President Roosevelt… H.J.R. 192… dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only." U. S. Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303.

            United States Code TITLE 28 § 3002 (15) "United States" means— (A) a Federal corporation

            The United States "…is a corporation, a legal fiction that existed well before the Revolutionary War." Republica v. Sween.

            The International Organization Immunities Act of 1945 placed all courts under the jurisdiction of the United Nations (reference Title 22 CFR Foreign Relations with Oaths of Office under section 92.12 and 92.31). Under Title 8 USC 1481all oath takers (judges, law enforcement officers, etc.) voluntarily forfeit their citizenship via the Oath of Office thus becoming foreign agents and are required to register under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (though they never do).

            All federal and state elected officials, appointed administrators, federal police, sheriffs and judges receive their paychecks through OPM, the Office of Personnel Management. OPM is owned by the International Monetary Fund, which is owned by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families and their Banking Empires, which is treason , under the Constitution .

            "Since March 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency…" Congress, 1973. "When Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution…" Congressman Beck, Congressional Record,1933. Currently, permanent state of national emergency. 22 U.S.C.A. 286d. 1977; See: Executive Order 12919

            The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under NO obligation to protect anyone.

            "neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service." California Government Code, § 845

            "police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to do anything." Souza v. City of Antioch, 62 California Reporter, 2d 909, 916 (Cal. App. 1997)

            It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sappv. Tallahasse, 348 So. 2nd 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F. Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

            "As the use of private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve notes], debt currency or securities [checks] is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of the government of "We the People" and reduces it to an entity rather than a government in the area of finance and commerce as a corporation or person. . . . Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is the holder-in-due course of some contract or commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom the payment and performance are made and are willing to produce said documents and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its demands called statutes. For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 US. 363-371

            .

          • So you found a lot of misrepresented, plainly false, out-of-context and inapplicable nonsense on the internet – so what? I don't have time to debunk it all right now, but it wouldn't be hard.

          • Hipponax (μητροκοίτης)

            Out of context is right. This is exactly why Scalia didn't want to televise the SC.
            Same people who don't understand the context of terms or words or even entire ideas being narrowly defined into a chapter or section of the law and think it will hold true across the board.

            The problem is that very sad people who desire to feel like special snow flakes go online and find something that feeds their confirmation bias. They are not particularly bright in the first place and get stuck on the snippets they are fed. Then fight like the devil to maintain some insane conspiracy theory because it props up their belief that they are not just insufferable morons.

          • Russell Patton Davis - Journal

            That was a snarky way to abandon the field.
            You lost the argument by default.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Wanna pick one and I'll explain why it doesn't mean what Jody thinks it means?

          • pseudolaw likes to do that – he/she either does that or doesn't allow the comment to be posted when he/she has been backed into a corner with REAL law – rather than the PSEUDO law he/she likes to bandy about…

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            There's nothing wrong with having questions and grave concerns about the structure of government, but these citations don't mean what they've been purported to mean. I don't have access to a computer right now, but I will try to properly address these quotations for you soon. In the meantime, I recommend looking for context that will explain what they really mean. For instance, 26 USC 3002 (15)(A) is limited strictly to one chapter about debt collection, and refers to corporations chartered by Congress, such as FDIC and Amtrak. Court decisions have found that police have no specific duty to particular individuals, except in limited circumstances. All this does is prevent police departments from being civilly liable every time they aren't able to prevent, stop, or solve a crime. I've already addressed the Clearfield decision in another comment, but the text of the opinion makes it clear that its meaning is to hold the federal government to the same commercial laws as everybody else, not to degrade its sovereignty. Douglas made this clear in the opinion. As for the Congressional Record, it includes hyperbole and rhetoric that has no legal meaning. If a Senator today accuses President Obama of being a space alien, this goes in the Congressional Record. It doesn't make it true or law.

          • None of the Above , it is not that simple . Until a short while ago , anyone could go on the Dun and Bradstreet site and look up the Duns number of any court in the country . Dun and Bradstreet and their rating system is all about the profits and solvency of private for profit corporations.. This country is being run so its constituents in government are making huge profits fleecing the general public taxpayers .. Case in point the Iraq war . Bush in his autobiography states it was Cheney who compelled him to go to war. Cheneys company wins the No bid contracts while he is ( vice ) president , with the taxpayers footing the bill . There are eyewitness reports of Haliburton/Brown and Root , running convoys of empty trucks through some of the most dangerous areas of Iraq and billing the government by the mile ! So the American people were some 3 trillion $ in debt when Bush left office !You have Susan Ignanni , the top insurance lobbyist writing most of the Affordable Care Act ( tax) , forcing all americans into the insurance Ponzi system ,again with the individual taxpayers paying huge penalties , fines up to $2,200 .00 for not complying with the Affordable Care Tax , You have Michael Taylor former attorney ( and lobbyist ) for Monsanto , being appointed as the head consultant for the FDA . No wonder we cannot get GMO'S labeled .reports have it Obama signed a bill making Monsanto immune from lawsuits . Look into the Harry Ried land trust ,owning acres of land all around the now infamous Bundy ranch , you think that is a coincidence , with many of the transfers of title showing no records of the transactions ?

          • Some posts must be manually approved. Thanks for your patience.

          • Why am I not seeing the same post as seen in my email ?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            "Dun and Bradstreet and their rating system is all about the profits and solvency of private for profit corporations"

            This is false. Dun & Bradstreet rate any entity that borrows or wants a credit rating. This includes states, municipalities, agencies, non-profits, and so on. Even governments get rated on creditworthiness. As for the rest, you're describing corruption and regulatory capture, which are both serious problems. They don't require or suggest a privately-owned, for-profit government.

        • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

          Your original post shows me that you don't know the difference between a private corporation and the corporate nature of a government. This one shows me that you've fallen for every conspiracy theory you've ever read, and probably blame the Illuminati every time two leaves fall at the same time.

          Do you actually have any evidence for any of these claims, or just more assertions that completely ordinary facts can only be explained by goofy theories?

          Also, do you at least realize that the United States Corporation Company has nothing to do with the United States' federal government? From the very video you showed me, it can be seen that it's just an ordinary company that provides business services to other ordinary companies as a registered agent.

          • Sorry but I do not speak SHEEPISTANY , your ability to write without actualy saying anything shows you are either brainwashed by your public schooling or you are a shill and part of the problem . It is common sense if the fed answers to no one , and it takes an act of congress to audit the fed , which they have been unable to produce , then they are separate and out of reach of the government . The article above states the treasury is acting within the confines of the constitution , have you read it ? under the constitution it is unlawfull to create a system of payment of debt with anything other than gold or silver coin . article 1 section 10 expressly forbids the use of notes , look in your pocket , what you are erroneously calling money, is FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ,they are telling you on the instrument what the instrument is . . Notes are not money but a promise to pay in the future . Money in blacks law dictionary .Money ;" in usual and ordinary acceptations it means gold silver or paper money used as a circulating medium of exchange , and does not embrace notes …" Blacks law 4th edition pg 1157 .President Kennedy passed executive order 11110 to do away with the federal reserve and had already began the printing of " Silver Certificates " , that is paper money backed by and redeemable in silver .The evidence is everywhere if one has the ability to see beyond their media created sheep colored glasses . There are books written on when the private fed took over, and its effect on this this country , one that comes to mind is " The Creature From Jekyll Island " a simple question , if you own a business , do you need permission from anyone or an act of congress to audit the books of that business ?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Ah, so you don't read English. OK.

          • If you truly want proof as you claim , here is a list of 21 books , including " The creature from Jekyll Island" I recommended above , This is not my compilation , but if you are truly seeking the truth , and not just a choir to preach to ! .Just reading the descriptive paragraphs under each titled book should give you cause for concern . http://www.activistpost.com/2011/08/21-books-ruling-elite-doesnt-want-you.html

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            You started off at the point in that video specifically claiming that a private company in Florida has some unsavory connection to the federal government. That's the claim I'm talking about.

        • The Federal Reserve was created by the Federal Reserve Act and therefore remains subject to the Congress that created it. There is no Creature from Jekyll Island – you can verify the votes of hundreds of congressmen for yourself. As seems to be the trend, record profits were recently transferred to the national treasury. In fact, the Fed is unhappy because this year Congress also decided to tap into their surplus operating capital to fund federal transportation projects: http://www.ibtimes.com/us-treasury-got-117b-fed-2015-193b-fund-federal-highway-bill-2260706. I plan to do an article about all this one of these days.

    • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

      Also, please be aware:

      Just because an agency, municipality, or other part of government has a Dun & Bradstreet number doesn't mean that it's a private corporation. You don't have to be a private corporation to get scored by D&B.

      28 USC 3002(15)(A) applies only to Chapter 176 of Title 28 of the US Code. That one chapter only deals with the collection of federal debt, and "federal corporation" in that section refers to federally-chartered corporations like Amtrak and the FDIC.

      27 CFR 72.11 applies only to Part 72 (DISPOSITION OF SEIZED PERSONAL PROPERTY) of Chapter 1 (ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY) of Title 27 (Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms) of the Code of Federal Regulations. It does not alter the character of these offenses under criminal law, state or federal.

      Senate Report 93-549 was part of a debate about whether or not to remove the open-ended emergency powers that Congress granted the Presidency in 1933. It resulted in Public Law 94-412 which ended the 40+ year state of emergency, rescinded Presidential emergency powers, and restricted the scope and duration of future states of emergency.

      Contrary claims are made by people who are more interested in propping up their conspiracy theories with bogus and misleading citations than in actually learning what the law says and means. They are not actually interested in the truth.

  • The US is not a typical corporation subject to another state or country's laws – it's a sovereign state recognized by nearly 200 other countries worldwide. Any profits stay in the public system for the benefit of all people on the territory.

    • Benefit of "all" people. That's a farce.

    • White Bolivians are a minority ethnic group in Bolivia, accounting for 5% of the country's population. There are two govt's in existence side by side, the white and the ethnic govt. The white govt is the one recognized by the world nations. Under circumstances that are irrelevant to the natural state of what is really happening, does these pseudo laws really means anything?

    • Isn't the US subject to the federal reserve?? If we don't play by their rules we don't get money. If we don't get money we can't live or function as a country. Id say our whole country and every one in it is subject to the federal reserve

      • The Constitution is the supreme law. The Constitution created Congress. Congress created the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve sends profits and whatever else Congress wants to the national treasury and the Federal Reserve Act can be repealed or amended by Congress at any time.

        • You don't have to talk to me or anybody else like we are idiots. I did graduate grade school.
          I feel like you misunderstood my point. My point was that while congress my have the power to repeal the Federal reserve act they never would because without the Federal Reserve there would be no money and with out money the country and every one in it would no longer be Able to function.
          The people that come on this site choose to respect you even if they may have vastly different options from you. Perhaps you could do the same.
          I do see how my comment could be misunderstood. Please allow me to make myself clear:
          Rules, laws,codes,statues,and constitutions are meaningless with out the ability to enforce them. Freedom means nothing without the ability to protect it and express it. Money is the thing which gives us this ability. It is the source of our power as Americans. It is litteraly impossible to live without money. With out money we could not eat food or drink water. Without money we would die. IF this is true then it stands to reason that we would be subject to the source of where the money comes from.
          You seem to know alot about how laws work and the inner functioning of Government, based on this knowledge what do you think would happen if congress repealed the Federal Reserve act?

        • worriedcriminaldefenseattorney

          "The Constitution is the supreme law."

          The Constitution merely set up a government for the sovereign nation of the United States of America (created by the Declaration of Independence). The sovereignty may change the government at any time, in whole or in part, expressly or impliedly and with or without notice. That's real law. It's pseudolaw to imply that there can be no change to government unless it's done the way the constitution says.

          • The several states are in fact superior and signed on to a compact to create a federal government with specific, limited power over them. But the federal government, when exercising its delegated power, is supreme pursuant to the supremacy clause. The collective people may change the government if/when the majority deem it fit, but until such time as the people's representatives disobey the will of the people they have no need or lawful justification to violently overthrow the government and rewrite it completely.

          • "But the federal government, when exercising its delegated power, is supreme…"

            Again, you are talking about the government – you are not talking about the sovereign states who set up the government and who may, at their whim, completely dismantle the government.

          • worriedcriminaldefenseattorney

            "violently overthrow the government"

            Who said anything about that?

          • If the people's representatives in legislature stop representing the will of the majority of people but continue claiming legitimacy the only way to replace the government is with violent overthrow to replace the existing system with a new one. The people could then reasonably legitimately claim natural rights, consent of the governed, etc. as the basis of their violent action as Jefferson did with the Declaration of Independence.

          • If the people's representatives stopped representing the will of the majority people the people could reasonably-legitimately claim the natural right to establish a new government similar to how Jefferson and other founders did with the Declaration of Independence. The only way to accomplish that is by physical violence.

          • ?If the people's representatives…"

            Who chooses representatives if not the sovereign, pseudolaw?

            "…the will of the majority people…how Jefferson and other founders did with the Declaration of Independence."

            Do you really know that a majority of the colonists sided with the revolutionists at the time of the Declaration of Independence?

            See this interesting contention at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(American_Revolution): "According to Robert Calhoon, between 40 and 45 percent of the white population in the Thirteen Colonies supported the Patriots' cause, between 15 and 20 percent supported the Loyalists, and the remainder were neutral or kept a low profile."

            I believe those who support independence now are even less than in those days.

            But, the lack of a majority did not stop the founders from establishing an independent state. It couldn't – once they declared they were no longer subjects of the King, they defaulted by operation of law to who they really were – individual sovereigns.

            So, why do you think it would be any different today, pseudolaw?

          • "The only way to accomplish that is by physical violence."

            No – those who recognize their sovereignty may simply declare what government they want – if any. The constitution does not bind the sovereign, neither does the magna carta, nor any papal bull – if the sovereign decides to no longer agree to it. It only makes sense – the constitution only created a government – it did not create a state. A government is the state's bitch.

            Those who recognize that their sovereignty lies within are not part of the military industrial complex that currently owns the government. As for the military industrial complex, they are the only ones who benefit from war – so, it will be them who will continue their physical violence – or not.

            I urge you to write a blog on "War Is A Racket" by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (USMC Commandant). He was the ultimate bad#@s, one who personally fought in a WWI AND was smart enough to figure out who he was really fighting for AND had the courage to directly confront it and expose their scam.

  • America – bought and paid for by the King of England.

      • Are you suggesting we revolt?

        • I'm suggesting the US separated itself from England.

          • Britain never lost the Revolutionary War. It simply infiltrated us by other means. We have become the United Kingdom bully boy. We are the chumps that are spending America’s taxpayer’s money to carry out the empire wishes. That needs to stop. America first not only means not Israel first it also means not the Queen first. It’s time our citizens take control of their land, their bank, their government and their culture.
            Let call this system for what it is fascist-elitist Mafiosi-style kidnapping of the powerful and dangerous structural organs of the empire.

    • worriedcriminaldefenseattorney

      guruurug, you may have a point here. I've always wondered how, when the purpose of the revolutionary war was to get out from under the financial demands of Britain, America – after supposedly winning the war – agreed to pay its "debt" to British creditors (see Treaty of Paris). Seems to me that to the victors goes the spoils – well, apparently not when it comes to the "victorious" Americans.

      • Article I_XVIII of the 1949 amendment to the Geneva convention, although this may not be applicable in the here and now, It does restrain my voice any further to suggest, that, I, at any time would weighed in on the conversations. I am largely nothing, produce nothing, and make this statement so all is plane, I am just observing..

  • The psuedo legal interpretations on this website are no less vague than those of the sovereign citizen movement. Its obvious that the U.S. government makes no profit other than what it's employees benefit from i.e. politicians, government agents etc. and the salaries and benefits they pirate for themselves through the use of legal fictions. Otherwise, the country and all of its people have been technically bankrupt for years, otherwise we wouldn't have trillions in national debt, owed mostly to the federal reserve banking system, which produces all of our "NOT currency" and sells it off as debt with interest that has compounded into our national debt. This article makes its biggest mistake mentioning the U.S. Treasury…lol…it produces currency as collectors items but that is not the currency we use. Coming from an unbiased standpoint, this article fails to debunk the sovereign citizen legal/philosophical interpretation, as this article itself fails to deal in reality. Its obvious that sovereigns are going to be quickly rooted out and quickly squashed by a tyrannical system that they oppose, but that doesn't mean that psuedo legal half truths in their own right, as presented by this article effectively get us any closer to the truth about the system we live in.

    • Yes, the whole government is a legal fiction, and only deals in legal fiction, and unless you can defeat the police and military or otherwise resist the collective will of the people you too are held under the legal fictions they create and enforce.

      trillions in national debt, owed mostly to the federal reserve banking system

      Source? Consider this. Who created the Federal Reserve system? It was Congress, and not in some secret, underhanded meeting as conspiracists claim. Before the Federal Reserve Act came into force it was all over the newspapers. Where do the vast majority of the Fed's profits go? Back to the federal treasury for the benefit of all US citizens and subjects.

      This article is about the US not being a typical for-profit corporation incorporated under a state or national law, but a sovereign nation-state recognized under international law as having exclusive jurisdiction over the territory. Please try to stay on topic.

      • THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS A PRIVATELY OWNED TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATION.

      • "…unless you can defeat the police and military or otherwise resist the
        collective will of the people you too are held under the legal fictions
        they create and enforce." Same old tired "might makes right" logical fallacy masquerading as law. Face it pseudolaw – you are not talking about law here – you're just shilling for slavery.

      • lifeamongtheruins

        The Fed Reserve gets to keep 8% of its dealings with the USA LLC, as per its Dunn and Bradstreet registry. As you said if the USA enters into contract it ceases to be sovereign and takes on a corporate nature. However, the Feds owners, the owners of the preferred shares of the Fed's member banks, information on whom is denied the public, get to profit exorbitantly from this debt as money system and use the influence this gives them in controlling the Fed and its influence over government, for their own interests. "You and I both know that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson"…if we are to ever get to the truth of matters and not play word games. Bankers and banks, listed as 'systemically important' now enjoy sovereign immunity from criminal prosecution by edict of the Bank of International Settlements. They can now commit financial crimes defined as abrogating 'international standards' and if found guilty only liable to fines. If the nation state must act as a corporation when dealing with these financial corporations and the financial corporations attain sovereign immunity from the laws of nation states, held only to international standards as regulations – law then a whole new hierarchy has been constructed while we've all be sleeping it seems.

  • Pingback: The Vatican American Constitution | The Antipas Chronicles

  • How does the Federal Reserve (private corporation) control/institute money? They are a private corporation. So their dealings are chartered and controlled by commerce and not common law courts. So in order to business w/ "United States" (whatever form you consider it) there must me rules and regulation, dicated by finance not common law. So there has to be a corporate entity labeled "United States".

    • Exactly.
      One thing is an idea while another is a group of flesh and blood people. How could something non corporeal interact with that which is alive?
      The answer is by creating something to bridge the gap a intermediary aka strawman

      • All men and women are considered natural persons in law. You don't need to be a citizen of any country, i.e. "have a strawman," you can be stateless and the law will still be applied to you. Anything less would be anarchy and chaos. There are no so-called common law courts outside of the state. All courts are subject to the state or federal constitutions and legislatures. They can make common law within state or federal jurisdiction only where the constitution and legislation are vague or silent.

        • I see you responded to my other comment so Please answer my question about what would happen if congress repealed the federal reserve act and then based on your answer explain to me weather Congress is subject to that which gives it the tool ( money) to acquire other tools to enforce and protect the constitution ( military and police act).
          By the way we are experiencing anarchy and chaos right now. People are killing each other and generally doing whatever they choose ie anarchy. There seems to be no reliable definable pattern to the human experience ie chaos. Seriously please answer my question.

        • Men and women are not considered natural persons in (statutory) law! Men and women are considered only (statutory) person, driver, taxpayer, operator, resident, u.s citizen in law. Codes, statues, ordinances and etc are only policy and so called law for statutory and voluntary u.s citizens, persons, drivers, residents, taxpayers and ect. On the other end of the spectrum there are constitutional citizens also known as a national of one of the states of the union, nonresident -nonperson

        • Where is the context for this comment, pseudolaw? Oh, that's right you deleted it. Question: why delete comments if you have confidence in your pseudolaw, pseudolaw? Is it because you spout pseudolaw to protect a government that has usurped power from the sovereign because you are scared to have a nation with a government that is truly a servant to the sovereign and realize how absurd your comments are in protection of the current treasonous government?

  • LMFAO you should try reading Clearfield trust co. v United States, Penhallow v Downes, and Montgomery v State. All supreme court decisions have ruled the United States is a Corporation.

    • Not one of those cases even contains the word "corporation". The US is an internationally-recognized sovereign state. Its laws are based on the state and federal constitutions and legislation and, where those are vague or silent, common law made by constitutional courts.

      • Pseudolaw, you posit the following: "A popular theory is that the United States is a for-profit corporation
        similar to McDonald's. A variety of arguments are used to try to support
        this claim. We intend to investigate those arguments, but first we need
        to get some fundamentals out of the way."

        Lol, pseudolaw – as far as "fundamentals" go, how about a case that DOES talk about the status of the US Government when it acts as a corporation? Like this one – Bank of the United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907-908 (1824), in which Chief Justice Marshall stated "It is, we think, a sound principle that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it divests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character and takes that of a private citizen…as a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty…" There you go – straight from US Supreme Court to your readers' eyes.

      • Address everything in this article then where the Supreme Court decisions clearly show you don't know what you are talking about or are full of bologna
        http://esotericawakening.com/state-citizenship

        • You don't have to be a citizen of anything for federal, state, county or municipal laws to apply to you. You can be stateless, i.e. having no citizenship anywhere, and they still apply. Consent is not required. Each state, except LA, imported English statutes and common law separately subject to future legislation and court rulings in the state via reception statutes. Common law isn't some separate thing that can't be modified. The supreme authority is the state constitution and legislation and the federal constitution and legislation in matters where the states delegated power to the federal government. Considering the states ratified the federal constitution, even if law couldn't be applied to stateless people and you were able to be considered just a state citizen the federal law would still apply because the states delegated power to the federal government.

          • Why did you delete my top comment where I listed the supreme court cases?

            18 U.S. Code § 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined

            The term “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”, as used in this title, includes:
            (1) The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
            (2) Any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon the waters of any of the Great Lakes, or any of the waters connecting them, or upon the Saint Lawrence River where the same constitutes the International Boundary Line.
            (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
            (4) Any island, rock, or key containing deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States.
            (5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or possession thereof, while such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
            (6) Any vehicle used or designed for flight or navigation in space and on the registry of the United States pursuant to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, while that vehicle is in flight, which is from the moment when all external doors are closed on Earth following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened on Earth for disembarkation or in the case of a forced landing, until the competent authorities take over the responsibility for the vehicle and for persons and property aboard.
            (7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States.
            (8) To the extent permitted by international law, any foreign vessel during a voyage having a scheduled departure from or arrival in the United States with respect to an offense committed by or against a national of the United States.
            (9) With respect to offenses committed by or against a national of the United States as that term is used in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act—
            (A) the premises of United States diplomatic, consular, military or other United States Government missions or entities in foreign States, including the buildings, parts of buildings, and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of those missions or entities, irrespective of ownership; and
            (B) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for purposes of those missions or entities or used by United States personnel assigned to those missions or entities.
            Nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to supersede any treaty or international agreement with which this paragraph conflicts. This paragraph does not apply with respect to an offense committed by a person described in section 3261(a) of this title.

          • I didn't delete anything. It was flagged as spam by Disqus. I'll approve it.
            Notice the definition you posted says "as used in this title". The definition only applies in cases involving sections of Title 18 of the USC. Not sure what point you're trying to make with that.

          • I didn't delete anything. It was flagged as spam by Disqus. I'll approve it.
            Notice the definition you posted says "as used in this title". The definition only applies in cases involving sections of Title 18 of the USC. Are you involved in a federal case where a Title 18 section using the term is being considered? If not, it's not important.

          • Everything is under Title 18 with the US government how do you think the UCC is able to be applied? It can only be applied under maritime jurisdiction, this is simple simon stuff come on man it is all contract law. If you don't contract with the government the laws do not apply to you. You are contracting with them through your birth certificate when you accept citizenSHIP to the corporation as opposed to being a state citizen as outlined in the Constitution which I cited at least 10 supreme court cases stating this fact. the 14th Amendment created a new kind of citizen that is not the same thing as a state citizen which can be renounced making you outside of this jurisdiction and contract law of the UCC.

          • The states have each independently incorporated all, some or none of the Uniform Commercial Code, which was created "with the goal of harmonizing the law of sales and other commercial transactions across the US". It's not under Title 18 of the USC. State and federal jurisdictions are largely separate. As I linked previously your consent or contract isn't required and the courts admit that. It's not based on maritime jurisdiction. Look up the origins of state police power.

          • Applying UCC statues to flesh and blood human beings can only possibly be PSEUDO legal if your legal fiction is not a human person obviously since countless UCC statues directly violate your rights under the Constitution. They obviously found a loop hole by incorporating and tricking people into falling under a new kind of legal jurisdiction that they consented to under contract just like a nondisclosure agreement violates your first amendment rights but you CONSENTED to it under contract. It is simple ABC, how are the federal laws they apply to people able to be legal if they are unconstitutional? By creating this legal fiction as part of a corporation you consent to be part of (or your parents did) with your birth certificate. This isn't rocket science.

            Just like how companies you work at don't have to allow you constitutional rights like free speech, right to bear arms etc etc. On private property the person who owns the property does not have to allow you the rights guaranteed by the Constitution which we clearly see demonstrated with censorship on social media that violates your first amendment right but they are able to get away with it as a private corporation same as the federal corporation you contracted with because it is all ruse, it is all just a feudal system in new clothes by the same crook bankers that have been doing this for 1000's of years.

          • Couple this with the supreme court rulings I posted earlier (I will post again) stating this is exactly how the government is indeed operating and I will have to say checkmate.

            Title 28 USC 3002 (15)(A)
            (15) “United States” means—
            (A) a Federal corporation;
            (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
            (C) an instrumentality of the United States.

            19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations, §884:

            “The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” [N.Y. v. re Merriam 36 N.E. 505; 141 N.Y. 479; affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073; 41 L. Ed. 287]

            "When governments enter the world of tax, the taxes the IRS collects are not a direct tax and commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation." – United States v.Burr. 309 U.S. 242

            "Governments descend to the Level of a mere share in the American dream. private corporation, and take on the Mr. Director, in this letter, I do not base my private corporate commercial paper [Federal legal determinations on the old argument of direct Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is taxes based upon apportionment as being the only concerned. … For purposes of suit, such lawful way that Congress can tax the citizens of corporations and individuals are regarded as the states. As far as I can determine, our entities entirely separate from government." Congress has only laid and collected a direct tax – Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States

            “The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to… I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism… It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”
            – Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in the 1901 case of Downes v. Bidwell.

            “The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.” U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)

            “We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own…”
            United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

            “…he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,…” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
            McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

            “That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,…” Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

            “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …” Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

            “Taxpayers are not [de jure] State Citizens.” Belmont v. Town of Gulfport, 122 So. 10.
            State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122: “the term ‘citizen‘ in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject’ in common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government.”

            “The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.” – Supreme Court: Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226

            “The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States.” – Supreme Court: US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

            The Amendment (14th) recognized that “an individual can be a Citizen of one of the several states without being a citizen of the United States,” (U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830), or, “a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a state.” (Slaughter-House Cases, supra; cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875)).

            “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Citing U.S. v. Cruikshank, supra. – Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors, 221 A.2d 431 (1966)

            The courts presume you to be a federal citizen, without even telling you that there are different classes of citizens. It is up to you dispute this. Use your passport and the actual birth certificate.
            See…
            “Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability.” U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).

            “There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”. – Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

            “The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.- Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
            “…rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”. – Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

            “There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”. – Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

            “Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an “individual entity“ – Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773

            “…the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment].”- Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520

            “The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment.” – Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99

            “The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.” – W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180 U.S. 452

            “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” – Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

            "Foreign government:: The government of the United States of America, as distinguished from the government of the several states." (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition).

            "Foreign Laws: The laws of a foreign country or sister state."
            "Foreign States: Nations outside of the United States." Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)

            The government of the "United States" is actually foreign to the sovereign 50 states. It was meant to be a separate "thing," but not to become a replacement "nation" for the 50 sovereign nation/states. Preamble of Public Law, 15 United States Statutes at Large, chapter 249, pps 223-224 (1868).

            Title 28 USC Section 3002(5) Chapter 176. "It is clear that the United States . . . is a corporation . . ." 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724.

            "It is well settled that "United States" et al. is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name "District of Columbia," 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62.

    • Im gonna resurect this one. Guérinière. Don't listen to this hogwash nor the shill bathing in it. For one, you don't appear in court as a corporation, but what are we representing is still the question. A corporation? Really, more of security, held in probate by the 'courts' if we are resprenting under agreement/silent contract said Defendant. But yes, we do appear as a natural person. If convicted, we are then 'the defendant' (notice: 'the' and lower-case 'd'). And thanks to the lien on that security put their by an officer of that court… well since we 'appeared to identify and represent' a security with a lien on it that is held in probate, that conviction resurrects it from the dead and our person, body and all, will serve as collateral and be accountable to the amount on that judges order as defined on his bookkeeping and balancing of the lien on security (public) and indebtness under the Buck Act and Trading with the Enemy Act of the person (private). Now naturally, public and private cannot mix but thanks to the department of commerce, other infinitely worded equally invasive contracts we make with our government, or court rulings… well lets just say the naturally cant mix becomes normally accepted as freedom.

      Now, there is a Supreme Court of the united States of America and a United States Supreme Court. The first is an Article III court, the latter is an Article I and Article III court. Very few will very rarely find themselves in the realm of the first one. If one does, you got lucky, but its prolly because you killed someone so maybe not.

      Going back to these omnipresent contracts… well the original Constitution is not omnipotent. It is superceded by our 'unlimited right to contract'. And any judge will tell you once you have consented to contract with their court in any of those myriad ways they have slipped by us to gain that consent, EPECIALLY since the dispute is of terms of contracts that the "Constituation does not apply here". And most "diplomatic sovereigns" that find themselves in court wonder why despite all the evidence saying it does.

      Enter the UCC…
      to be continued (before my phone dies and post is lost – FB post embed won't let me copy text just says 'drag to drop images' with long touch.)

  • Revenues: In 2006, the Congresional Research Service published a report that 100% of income tax monies collected went, not to the government for the goods and services that we expect, but to the federal reserve bank of NY, a private bank and its shareholders.
    I, also, recommend to you a book,"The Killing of Uncle Sam". Most illuminating and very well documented.

    • The Federal Reserve was created, and can be destroyed, by an Act of Congress. You can view the hundreds of votes needed to create it in the public record, as described here.

      The House passed the bill 298-60 on the evening of Dec. 22, 1913. The Senate began debate the following day at 10am, and passed it 43-25 at 2:30pm.

      The vast majority of the Fed's revenue is returned to the federal treasury. The other year the Fed was upset because Congress raided its excess capital for highway infrastructure projects. Details about all that can be seen in articles such as this.

  • I'm very much on the fence about all of this stuff. I've been trying to research the sovereign and Freeman movements, and I definitely see where they're coming from, but my issue is I can't find proof of people doing this and it producing positive results. In fact I see it making things worse, I've even listened to the badly recorded court proceedings on cell phones, or people make fools of themselves yelling in court. And the people who swear it works only want to tell you everything after you pay? Like the government is an evil empire trying to take your money, now pay me to know how to stop them taking advantage? I think both sides of these comments are lacking, stop telling me I'm dumb for not wanting to oppressed and stop trying to further oppress with so called help

  • The United States is a “Federal Corporation”: 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) <<<It says so in the USC!

  • The United States is a “Federal Corporation”: 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)

    • Read the whole section. Notice the top says "As used in this chapter." Now click up to the parent Chapter 176. The definition only applies when interpreting 28 USC 3001 to 3308 which relate to Federal Debt Collection Procedure.

    • Read the whole section. Notice the top says "As used in this chapter." Now click up to the parent Chapter 176. The definition only applies when interpreting 28 USC 3001 to 3308 which relate to Federal Debt Collection Procedure. Anywhere you see "United States" in these sections it can be considered also applicable to any federal corporation.

  • worriedcriminaldefenseattorney

    pseudolaw, you said: "…unless you can defeat the police and military or otherwise resist the
    collective will of the people you too are held under the legal fictions
    they create and enforce." In other words, you are saying that the US is a tyranny?

    • A republic employing representative democracy is, crudely, tyranny of the majority, yeah. There's no system that provides everyone exactly what they want at all times. Representative democracy is the best we have. The government only becomes justifiably illegitimate, in the eyes of western law, when the majority isn't represented.

      • worriedcriminaldefenseattorney

        "The government only becomes justifiably illegitimate, in the eyes of western law, when the majority isn't represented."

        By that standard, it seems to me that it's obvious the US government has been illegitimate for quite some time. And, for some time, the majority would get rid of most of "government" – if their "representatives" would allow it. Obviously, they won't allow it even though resisting such a directive is, at the very least, treason (as will be clear below).

        However, I think the US republic was set up not to ensure majority rule, but to ensure the rule of the individual. When the "founding fathers" talked "self-government" – that's exactly what they meant. You are right that "in the eyes of western law" it's majority rule. But, "western law" is looking through either inaccurate or corrupt eyes.

        The fact is, no government is legitimate unless its every action is approved of by each who contracted for it to act on his/her behalf.

        I think the founders of the republic knew that and sought to ensure that. It was just practically immediately buried under a sea of corruption.

        However, it didn't fundamentally change the nature of the state – the republic originally set up is still there. Quite legitimately then, it is up to the individual in the US to "opt out" – or fire the government at least to the extent it acts upon that him/her self – to govern his/her own self, having no agent appointed to do it for them.

        I think some evidence of that original republic – and the binding mandatory legal authority for it – may be found at page 474 of Chisholm v. Georgia when John Jay stated each of us are "joint tenants in the sovereignty". Like any joint tenancy noted in the law of property, a
        joint tenant may sever his interest in the joint tenancy, yet retain his/her undivided interest in the whole as a tenant in common with the joint tenancy which is left over after he/she left it. The government may then remain to supposedly determine what to do for the majority, but the whole would include one less sovereign in its collective mix.

        The sovereign who thus severed his/her interest may then govern himself/herself as he/she pleases, agreeing with the government of the joint tenancy when it suits him/her, or doing something different when it does not. What do you think about that?

        • By that standard, it seems to me that it's obvious the US government has been illegitimate for quite some time.

          I'd argue you're wrong about that because there aren't widespread public polls saying the same. If the majority wanted most of government abolished, and the representatives didn't heed the will of the people demonstrated through public polling, 160+ million people would protest in the streets, storm the state and federal capitols, etc., until it happened.

          No government ever created has recognized individual sovereignty. That wouldn't be government at all. Imagine if laws against murder were optional. It would be chaos. In medieval or even frontier times it might have been closer to that, but with the advent of high technology, e.g. nukes and other WMDs, I think it becomes infeasible.

          100% support is impossible, so we've settled on the next best thing which is representative democracy. The founders didn't support individual sovereignty at all. It was always rule by the representatives of the consenting majority. Yes, the people are said to be joint tenants in sovereignty. It's described in the principle of popular sovereignty.

          If there were a way to sever oneself from the government, I think it's ridiculous to think one should be able to benefit from the products and resources the consenting members work and pay for without any of the duties. It's fun to dream, though.

          I have the most respect and support for would-be sovereigns who try to live off the land on their own without taking anything from the society they reject.

        • By that standard, it seems to me that it's obvious the US government has been illegitimate for quite some time.

          I'd argue you're wrong about that because there aren't widespread public polls saying the same. If the majority wanted most of government abolished, and the representatives didn't heed the will of the people demonstrated through public polling, 160+ million people would protest in the streets, storm the state and federal capitols, etc., until it happened.

          No government ever created has recognized individual sovereignty. That wouldn't be government at all. Imagine if laws against murder were optional. It would be chaos. In medieval or even frontier times it might have been closer to that, but with the advent of high technology, e.g. nukes and other WMDs, I think it becomes infeasible to reduce regulation much.

          100% support is impossible, so we've settled on the next best thing which is representative democracy. The founders didn't support individual sovereignty at all. It was always rule by the representatives of the consenting majority. Yes, the people are said to be joint tenants in sovereignty. It's described in the principle of popular sovereignty.

          If there were a way to sever oneself from the government, I think it's ridiculous to think one should be able to benefit from the products and resources the consenting members work and pay for without any of the duties. It's fun to dream, though.

          I have the most respect and support for would-be sovereigns who try to live off the land on their own while taking as little as possible from the society they reject.

          • worriedcriminaldefenseattorney

            "I'd argue you're wrong about that because there aren't widespread public polls saying the same."

            If it were posited to the people in a poll that they are each in fact a joint tenant in the sovereignty who can fire the government at will and they were asked "do you support the current government acknowledging that right?" – do you think only a minority would say yes? I'd be shocked if that were the case.

            "160+ million people would protest in the streets, storm the state and federal capitols, etc., until it happened."

            I hate to say it, but I doubt that.

            "No government ever created has recognized individual sovereignty."

            I think you are mistaken here. Surely all the king's various ministers didn't think that. Also, you must not think much of the mandatory authority presented in Chisholm v. Georgia, if you believe that.

            "Imagine if laws against murder were optional. It would be chaos."

            I highly doubt that. If that were true, we'd have chaos now and I think what we have now is a bit less than what could be termed chaos. I also believe anything in the US now that is chaotic is simply due to the government that has been in charge. The natural state of humans is order – not chaos. The chaos argument is just a statist stalwart that they will never allow to be disproven.

            "100% support is impossible"

            That cannot be proven by you, but, even were susceptable to proof, so what?

            "Yes, the people are said to be joint tenants in sovereignty."

            Well then, you must understand that each joint tenant has the right to possess the whole.

            "If there were a way to sever oneself from the government, I think it's
            ridiculous to think one should be able to benefit from the products and
            resources the consenting members work and pay for without any of the
            duties."

            I agree. That's why whoever does so must pay for any value (if any) government actually provides.

            "I have the most respect and support for would-be sovereigns who try to
            live off the land on their own while taking as little as possible from
            the society they reject."

            It seems to me you do. Me too.

          • worriedcriminaldefenseattorney

            "100% support is impossible, so we've settled on the next best thing which is representative democracy."

            Actually, I should point out – I didn't settle on it at all. In fact, I'm adamantly opposed to it. However, I'm fine if others want that for themselves – I'm just opposed to me being included in it.

            If my behavior has somehow led the government to believe I appointed it as my representative for aiding me in governing myself, I cancel any such agreement effective immediately.

          • Yeah, it doesn't work that way and it's a waste of time and energy to try. Government doesn't view its claim of authority as a contract or agreement requiring consent.

            "Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals." (source)

          • worriedcriminaldefenseattorney

            "Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals."

            That law applies to individuals. The sovereign is not an individual. Of course the government doesn't think consent is needed for it to compel us to do what it wants. Obviously, there was a coup-d'etat in which the government simply seized the power of the state, a state whose very existence depends upon us human beings who are the only entities who comprise it.

            You said it your-self – it's tyranny.

          • The government considers all men and women "natural persons" no matter what they claim or call themselves. The court ruling I cited was directed at an individual "natural person" who tried to opt out of state law. It's a good read. It's basically the same thing that could happen to you if you persist with such claims in a state court. If you do continue to consider yourself exempt and flaunt the law, I advise you to try to avoid felony charges as those can have much more significant consequences for your person, which can severely limit your societal benefits and possibly result in prison time. Don't even think about filing a UCC-1 against an officer or judge – you can get 7-10 years for doing that even once. It's sad that many people have had to learn that the hard way.

          • worriedcriminaldefenseattorney

            "It's sad that many people have had to learn that the hard way."

            Very true. People have to realize they are dealing with the power of the state (albeit de facto). I commend you for knocking down some of the more pervasive misconceptions out there, like the idea that the US was somehow transformed because someone filed articles of corporation using "US" in the corporate name. I have found myself doing the same thing in fringe legal forums and have tried to correct cites to cases that don't say what is quoted by the person who cited them.

            As for me, I'm an adult who acts with due regard for the risks of acting differently in a system I have intimate knowledge of, but thank you for the warning about the dangers caused by the ignorance and bias inherent in the government's courts.

            I actually feel a bit guilty engaging in this conversation with you at all (since it's a bit off topic), but it has been too fun not to. As to the topic, I mostly agree with your take on it, especially the honest acknowledgement that the state is not the government and that all states are body politics, which are nothing less than corporations.

            As to the fringe hanging off the topic, I have posted the truth of my status – no UCC forms are required. It is also true that anyone else may acknowledge their status as a joint tenant in the sovereignty with similar ease.

            You have amply pointed out the manner in which the government can react when confronted with the truth and you have acknowledged its tyranny. But, the truth remains: I am the state, as are any other Americans who acknowledge their status as joint tenants in the sovereignty and the government is our servant.

          • "It's sad that many people have had to learn that the hard way."

            It's much, much sadder when people don't even try. And it's sadder still when some people don't recognize their right to do so – like you.

    • Every time we swear under oath that we are a UNITED STATES Citizen. We agree to be the sureties for the national debt. Through surreptitiously written adhesion contracts. With implied consent and compelled compliance. At the point of a gun.

      • Then when you are being sworn in, you state you are not appearing in the lesser political capacity of US Citizen, rather you are appearing in your greater political capacity as joint tenant in the sovereignty. See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419, 471-72 ("…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country…the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.").

        • What is interesting to me and maybe you can explain why this is. None of the amendments after the 12th capitalizes Citizen. Whai is the significance of this?

          • Actually, the 12th amendment does not use the word citizen, capitalized or otherwise. The 11th amendment is the last to use the word "Citizen" in its capitalized version. The next one to use the word was the 14th amendment, which uses the lower case version "citizen". In my opinion, it may be inferred from that fact that a different class of citizen was created by the 14th amendment than that which had existed prior to that time.

          • Agreed, but the only way to know what any laws meaning is to see how each word is defined. Which complicates things immensely.

          • In my opinion, "citizen" or "Citizen" both generally are just new words to re-name an old one, "subject", or one who is inferior to the state. That's why it is important to stand in one's greater political capacity of "joint-tenant in the sovereignty."

          • Well said!!!
            I can tell by your terminology that you have invested a considerable amount researching this subject.

            Is there a site you would recommend?

          • It depends upon what you are interested in. Here, I am dealing with
            the political nature of the state. It's pretty simple in international
            law – the state makes the rules governing all who inhabit its
            territorial borders.

            You have to think of yourself as a King or Queen – what you say goes.

            That was the authority the King had over the Colonies prior to the
            revolution. Then, read Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
            (specifically, Chief Justice John Jay's opinion that starts on page
            469). It describes how that absolute power of the King devolved on the
            Americans upon winning the Revolutionary War against England.

            Lawyers will tell you that Chisholm wasn't about the power of the
            people. However, they are wrong, because in order to decide the issue
            presented in the case (Georgia's judicial immunity or lack thereof), it
            was necessary to determine the extent of the power of the people who
            comprise the states known as the USA and Georgia. Therefore, Chisholm's
            statements about the power of the people were part of the ratio
            decidendi (look it up) of the case – not dicta (look it up) and those
            statements were mandatory authority on the courts of the US for a short
            time. Finally, they will tell you the best argument about why Chisholm
            cannot be cited as mandatory authority (authority a court must follow) –
            because it was superceded by the 11th amendment – which is true.

            However, I contend that its words are still persuasive authority concerning the
            two political capacities of an American (citizen or Citizen – which are
            one or more political capacities that are of lesser power than the state)
            and joint tenant in the sovereignty – which is the state itself.

            The government serves at the pleasure of the state. The state may invalidate any
            rule made by the government at will and without notice – including the
            US Constitution. The Queen of England can also do that – she can repeal
            the Magna Carta and disband the parliament any old time she likes and
            there's nothing anyone can do about it. As joint tenant in the
            sovereignty of the USA and the "state" you live in, you may invalidate
            any law, judgment, etc. and may remove any authority the US government
            has hitherto applied to you any time you want.

            People (mostly lawyers) who say the US Constitution has to be amended according to its terms simply don't understand that the US Constitution merely created a
            government for the state (joint tenants in the sovereignty) and that the
            government can never have more power than the state it serves, no
            matter how loud or violent the government argues that it does.

            That's basically it. I caution you that government courts will likely not
            recognize Chisholm as authority that you – while acting in your
            sovereign capacity – are more powerful than it. In fact, if they are
            acting within their constitutional power, the extent of your political
            status (other than citizen or Citizen) is not justiciable (ability to
            hear a case) because it is a political question. It makes no sense for a
            government court to opine on the power of its master – for they have no
            way of knowing it – a court cannot act judicially on the issue, because it
            cannot determine the master who created it has no power.

          • What troubles me about the revolutionary war, is founders failure to demand that the king relinquish "allodial title" to the land.
            Was this a mere oversight on their part? But I digress.

            From my limited understanding of law. I can see where surreptitiously written adhesion contracts have entrapped us into accepting what has been described as " the office of person".

            A state created office that is established when we ask for, then receive a drivers license or ID, with an all caps name. Of course I am using the "legal fiction" known as a " legal person".
            If there were no legal ramifications from using a DL or state issued ID in all caps. It seems to be the use of all caps would be limited to the state, but we see it on all legal documents from banking accounts to utility bills.

            The use of which has diminished our standing as a sovereign of the land.

            I'm aware that the state and the courts have resorted rulings within the UCC (uniform commercial code) and they move in and out of common law or equity law. As they see fit.

            Anyway, I hope I haven't confused you with my limited understanding of law and its application.

            Thank you, for taking the time and offering your knowledge so freely.

          • Worried Criminal Defense Atty

            Hi landy – I'm posting under a different name – but I'm the same person as "Law of the Land". There is something to "office of the person". I do believe that the whole government slavery system operates on that basis. In the old days when that con-game was just getting started, one could do a writ of abatement challenging the fictitious nature of the claimant, which would stay the proceeding until a flesh and blood claimant appeared. But, now, even though that law is still good law, there's practically no judges and lawyers who know anything about it, or even want to know anything about it, which makes it of limited utility – even though I'm convinced it's right. There's no way a living human being can contract with a fictitious person without assuming a fictitious persona him/her-self.

            "I'm aware that the state and the courts have resorted rulings within the
            UCC (uniform commercial code) and they move in and out of common law or
            equity law. As they see fit."

            Unless they are deciding a case that hinges on negotiable instruments law, secured transactions, sales contracts, etc., I don't believe the courts are operating under the UCC – try using Article 3 of the UCC in a foreclosure defense in California – Judges and their staff attorneys HATE it because it's very difficult to learn and they are not required to use it very often. No, I believe they are alternatively operating under common law, statutory and equity rules. If one consents to donning a persona to enter into the contest, common law and equity courts can hear the case just fine.

            "A state created office that is established when we ask for, then receive
            a drivers license or ID, with an all caps name. Of course I am using
            the "legal fiction" known as a " legal person". If there were no legal ramifications from using a DL or state issued ID in all caps. It seems to be the use of all caps would be limited to the state, but we see it on all legal documents from banking accounts to utility bills…"

            I hear you about the "all caps" naming system. The explanation that it's just a software thing or an outdated yet persistent convention is laughable. It clearly has some significance, but no one wants to reveal what it is. I believe it creates a persona different from the flesh and blood human who it supposedly describes. Clearly, the DMV, Utility companies, government agencies, etc., are all fictitious persons – consequently, they can only deal with other fictitious entities (our all caps "persons"), which most of us stupidly believe is actually us. Again, it's ripe for a writ of abatement.

            "What troubles me about the revolutionary war, is founders failure to
            demand that the king relinquish "allodial title" to the land.
            Was this a mere oversight on their part? But I digress."

            That's true – there's nothing in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 that specifically grants alloidal title to the USA. However, I think the wording that was used in it was sufficient to do that: "Article 1: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

            However, there is another part of the treaty that potentially undermines that section: "Article 4: It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted." This is the most troubling part of the treaty. First, why would any "victor" in their right mind agree to staying a debtor vis a vis the party they were at war with – especially when the war was over purported obligations that the victor disagreed with? Second, it is conceivable that whatever obligations were preserved in the treaty came due and were not paid. Then, it is conceivable that the foreign creditor insisted on a lien on the land of the USA to secure some type of repayment agreement. It is also conceivable that certain agents in the US government could do that debtor/creditor agreement without any knowledge of the people, as the supposed representatives of the people. Voila! Now, no one owns their land because it is collateral for debt incurred by the government of the US.

  • You know, pseudolaw, you've cleared up a lot of common misinterpretations of the law, for which I commend you. That said, it's a shame that your mind has been shackled by government falsehoods (fantasy – rather than truth) to such an extent that you cannot be intellectually honest in discourse (because all justification for tyranny fails in the light of reason). I thought you were someone special – instead, you have proven your-self to be just another dupe.

  • Well, as far as income taxes are concerned. Every dollar we send to the IRS goes to the Federal Reserve. You know , one private corporation (IRS) collecting money for another private corporation, the Federal Reserve.

    Yeah I'd say we are living in a Corporatocracy, ran by the BANKSTERS and WALL STREET

  • To support your contention that the US Constitution is supreme over the people you state: "The created cannot supersede its creator." However, you really don't believe that. If you did, you would recognize that your quoted language is actually an argument against the supremacy of the US Constitution over the people. Fact is that the people are joint tenants in the sovereignty of the united States of America. Some of the people created a government in enacting the US Constitution. Those people are supreme to the US Constitution and the government created thereby, because, as you state "The created cannot supersede its creator." Therefore, any one of the sovereign people may repudiate the US Constitution in favor of some other form of government and the current government created by the US Constitution has no legal right to stop such person(s). In fact, if any individual in the current government resists or fails to recognize that person's actions in repudiating it ARE the supreme law – that individual thereby commits an act of treason against the sovereignty of the united States of America.

  • @pseudolaw:disqus I am (A) Federal Corporation. besides you work for me since your a "barrister" I like watching you debunk me. Thanks for being a true loyal servant.

  • “The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to… I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism… It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”
    –Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in the 1901 case of Downes v. Bidwell.

    “The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.” U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)

    “We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own…”
    United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

    “…he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,…” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
    McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

    “That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,…” Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

    “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …” Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

    “Taxpayers are not [de jure] State Citizens.” Belmont v. Town of Gulfport, 122 So. 10.

    State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122: “the term ‘citizen‘ in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject’ in common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government.”

    Supreme Court: Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226:
    “The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”

    Supreme Court: US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957:
    “The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States.”

    The Amendment (14th) recognized that“an individual can be a Citizen of one of the several states without being a citizen of the United States,” (U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830), or, “a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a state.” (Slaughter-House Cases, supra; cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875)).

    A more recent case is Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors, 221 A.2d 431 (1966) which says: “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Citing U.S. v. Cruikshank, supra.

    The courts presume you to be a federal citizen, without even telling you that there are different classes of citizens. It is up to you dispute this. Use your passport and the actual birth certificate. See…

    “Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability.” U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).

    “There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
    Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

    “The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
    Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

    “…rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
    Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

    “There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
    Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

    “Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an “individual entity“, Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773

    “…the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment].”
    Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520

    “The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment.”
    Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99

    “The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.” W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180 U.S. 452

    “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.”Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

    http://esotericawakening.com/state-citizenship

    • These are definitely some interesting citations. I too enjoy exploring the nuances of federal and state citizenship, however it's not required to be a citizen for legislation to apply. If a stateless person, i.e. one without citizenship, murders someone, he can still be imprisoned under state or federal statutes against murder. Likewise, a stateless person can be held to state laws regulating vehicles and their operators on the public roads, or municipal laws against taking the Mayor's parking space, or whatever. Citizenship isn't required for laws to apply unless they are specifically written to be just for citizens or interpreted by the courts to require citizenship.

    • Marty Spaceage Mc Fly

      😮

    • Obviously, the political status "Citizen" is not all its cracked up to be. Fortunately, in the US one may choose between two political capacities, "Citizen" or "Joint-tenant of the sovereignty" – the latter being properly defined as the state itself. See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419, 471-72 ("…at the Revolution, the
      sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of
      the country…the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and
      as joint tenants in the sovereignty."). As an indivisible part of the state itself, the US Constitution was made for your benefit and at your pleasure. Likewise, the courts that interpret it serve at your pleasure, as does the legislative and executive branches of government. If you don't like any of that, you can rightfully refuse its application to your-self and change it at will and without notice, because, in this country, you are the ruler if you act in your political capacity as joint tenant of the sovereignty, if you don't agree to be the ruled by consenting to the lesser political status of Citizen that the your bitch – the government – continuously and insipidly tries to trick you into agreeing to.

  • title 28 usc 3002 (15)(A)
    (15) “United States” means—
    (A) a Federal corporation;
    (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
    (C) an instrumentality of the United States.

  • lifeamongtheruins

    'Revenue' may be managed by a Treasury 'Department' within government but taxation is run by a 'service' with its official address outside of the USA in Puerto Rico. Go figure the legalese behind this one.

  • Marty Spaceage Mc Fly

    All you have to do I acknowledge the Uniform COMMERCIAL Codes… We're definitely living under a corporation…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *