14th Amendment

goldphoenix · #1 03-07-2004, 06:48 AM

I've been reading about 14th amendment citizenship. Apparently, we are all presumed to be 14th amendment citizens as soon as we obtain a ssn (we are then considered a part of the trust). Accepting any benefits furthers this presumption. This brings a lot of questions to my mind. How would one rebut this presumption? What can one do about having been treated in the past as a 14th amendment slave as opposed to being a free citizen of the soil? Any insights on this 14th amendment issue? Please share your thoughts!

Peace,

goldphoenix

#2 03-07-2004, 07:24 AM

goldphoenix,

This is just a guess and my current opinion of the meaning of the 14th amendment.

Notice that it says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.& No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, I think that you could argue jurisdiction.

My favorite is the last line where it says we have rights to the equal protection of the law.& This means that we can use other state laws.& I just filed a court document using using Oklahoma law even though I live in Montana.

I think some other key points here are the fact that we are not, "persons".& We are flesh and blood men and women.& I have heard this point but I do not understand it well enough to be able to explain it, it somebody could step in and explain it that would be great.

I think that the part about "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." could also use some explination from a more experienced member.

Hope that this helps.&

Sara-Jane

goldphoenix · #3 03-07-2004, 07:32 AM

Thank you, Montana!

Does anyone know if the use of "person" in the U.S. con carries the same legal definition as most codes using the word "person"?

Peace,

goldphoenix

#4 03-07-2004, 08:16 AM

Hi, GP...

In one of my most recent exchanges with the agents here in Virginia, I pointed out this "dual citizenship" thing. On the one hand, a "State" cannot "...abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States,...nor deprive any person of life...."

So "citizens" have&"privileges." "Persons" have "rights." "Privileges" can therefore mean only "civil rights," such as the right to vote, etc.

I'm waiting for them to advise me of how they perceive me: as "citizen" or "person."&

Randy

Jerseee · #5 03-07-2004, 08:34 AM

Folks,

I never lose sight that we are operating in commerce. So when trying to decipher some of this goop--I always keep that in mind. Especially, when reading "amendments".

#6 03-07-2004, 08:46 AM

Jerseee,

Could you please explain that further according to the 14th amendment.

Thanks,

Sara-Jane

Jerseee · #7 03-07-2004, 09:03 AM

Montana,

What is my motto? "never argue" right?

Well, first they must prove jurisdiction. I will neither confirm or deny their claim until they show me proof.

Prove to me that I am a 14th Amendment citizen?
Where is your jurisdiction? Is it here in the court? Is it on the street in front of the Circle K? Prove to me that I cannot question the public debt? Is the debt public or private? You mean, I have the "PRIVILEGE" of repaying a debt everyday but, I do not have the "RIGHT" to ask for the balance owed?

You see these are questions--not arguments. IMHO, it is the same principle as demanding verification of an alleged debt.

I am asking them to prove something, before I can confirm or deny anything. If you argue about it...you lose.

I hope you understand my logic

#8 03-07-2004, 11:52 AM

Jersee,

Well put.&Your logic is beautiful. I need to be remined of this far too often as my first instinct is usually to argue. Thanks again.

Sara-Jane,

Are you aware that the Montana&court&can deny&and&is not bound to follow the Oklahoma law?& The equal protection clause does not bind states to the laws of other states.

Regarding "person", sometimes we are, sometimes we are not. It depends on the source (code, statute, UCC, etc.), intent, and sometimes judicial interpretation&of the word/law when it may be ambiguous. I have never read a USSC case where the word "person" has not applied to a flesh-and-blood human, and I&would&conclude that&a USSC case stating the opposite&does not exist.&The USSC cases&I have read have&stated that the word "person" has been expanded to include corporations and other entities.

-squirrels

James · #9 03-07-2004, 01:57 PM

goldphoenix<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Too often, it is what we already know and accept as “the facts” which are our enemy.<o

></o

>
At every turn we are faced with conflicting facts, conflicting realities, and always with misrepresentations, half truths, and outright fraud!<o

></o

>
>> Apparently, we are all presumed to be 14th amendment citizens as soon as we obtain a ssn<<<o

></o

>
U.S. citizens are either born in Washington D.C. or any of the Federal Territories<o

></o

>
(such as Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc) or are naturalized by two (2) adhesion contracts of the federal government because of the 14th amendment of July 9,1868.<o

></o

>
I can assure you, there is no presumption. It’s not getting a number that makes one a 14th amendment-citizen. It’s paying into “social security” that makes a contract (consent). This is a matter of fact and record.<o

></o

>
>> How would one rebut this presumption?<<<o

></o

>
Once again, if you have paid into social security, it’s not a presumption. But to answer your question, the burden of proof would be on the accuser. The accuser would need to prove you are a 14th Amendment citizen? <o

></o

>
>> What can one do about having been treated in the past as a 14th amendment slave as opposed to being a free citizen of the soil?<<<o

></o

>
For more information and facts visit http://64.176.219.79/TheFreedom-Path-rev1.06.doc <o

></o

>

>>Does anyone know if the use of "person" in the U.S. con carries the same legal definition as most codes using the word "person"?<<<o

></o

>

Good question. Research for your answer. However, codes use the term “person.” <o

></o

>
People are not persons. In the following section you will read legal definitions of the word 'person'. As you will see, persons are defined as non-sovereigns. A sovereign is someone who is not subject to statutes.& A person is someone who voluntarily submits himself to statutes. <o

></o

>
In the United States of America the people are sovereign over their civil servants.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137,1910: <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
"This word person” and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use. A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested.. not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons...The law of persons is the law of status or condition." (Emphasis has been added.)
&
US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 US 653, 667 (1979): <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
"In common usage, the term person, does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it."& (Emphasis has been added.)<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604,61 SCt 742 (1941): <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
"Since in common usage the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it." <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice, 612 F2d 417 @425 (1979): <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
"the word 'person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. I, US. C. § para I " (Emphasis has been added.)<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
In the 1935 Supreme Court case of Perry v. US (294 US 330) the Supreme Court found that: <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
"In United States, sovereignty resides in people... the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared." (Emphasis has been added.)<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>

&<o

></o

>
&Montana<o

></o

>

>>I think that the part about "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." could also use some explination from a more experienced member.<<<o

></o

>

The phrase “citizen of the United States” is a prepositional phrase. The word “citizen” is a pronoun (takes the place of a noun). The preposition, “of,” means from, coming from or belonging to. The noun phrase “United States” is a corporation created 1871. It trademarked the names “United States”, “U.S.”, “U.S.A.”, “USA”, and “America”. So, what it says is; something from or belonging to a corporation.<o

></o

>

The “State of…” is a subsidiary-corporation of the corporate “United States.” So the prepositional phrase “citizen of the State” means something belonging to a corporation.<o

></o

>

&<o

></o

>

Randy<o

></o

>

>>So "citizens" have&"privileges." "Persons" have "rights." "Privileges" can therefore mean only "civil rights," such as the right to vote, etc.<<<o

></o

>

Men and women have rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,…”[Declaration of Independence]<o

></o

>

&>>I'm waiting for them to advise me of how they perceive me: as "citizen" or "person."lt;<

More important is how do you perceive yourself. 

"Where the word of a sovereign is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What are you doing?" Ecclesiastes 8:4<o

></o

>

goldphoenix · #10 03-07-2004, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

goldphoenix<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
U.S. citizens are either born in Washington D.C. or any of the Federal Territories<o

></o

>
(such as Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc) or are naturalized by two (2) adhesion contracts of the federal government because of the 14th amendment of July 9,1868.

&
What two adhesion contracts are those? Does one become a 14th amendment by accepting government (state/federal) benefits? Is there any way to reclaim those rights once they are lost (if lost through acceptance of benefits)?
&

Quote:

Once again, if you have paid into social security, it’s not a presumption. But to answer your question, the burden of proof would be on the accuser. The accuser would need to prove you are a 14th Amendment citizen? <o

></o

>
For more information and facts visit http://64.176.219.79/TheFreedom-Path-rev1.06.doc

&
So once you have paid into or accepted social security benefits, that makes one a 14th amendment citizen? Again, the above questions come to mind.
&
For some reason, I can't get that link to work for me.

Quote:

People are not persons. In the following section you will read legal definitions of the word 'person'. As you will see, persons are defined as non-sovereigns. A sovereign is someone who is not subject to statutes.& A person is someone who voluntarily submits himself to statutes. <o

></o

>
In the United States of America the people are sovereign over their civil servants.
&

&
Okay. How does one voluntarily UNsubmit themselves to statutes?
&
Thank you, James, for your comments!
&
Peace,
&
goldphoenix
&<o

></o

>

&<o

></o

>