Citizenship

[hAKEEM]

By birth we are each a Citizen of the State of New Jersey, or a Citizen of the State of California, or a Citizen of the State Florida, or a Citizen of the State of whatever State you wherein we were born, and at the same time, we are all Citizens of the united States of America, AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ACTS OF CONGRESS, OTHER THAN THE 18 GRANTS OF POWERS SPECIFICALLY CITED IN THE Constitution for the united States of America. People who are born or who reside within the federal District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, any territory, on any naval base or dockyard, within forts, or within insular possessions are called U.S. citizens AND are subject to Acts of Congress. Within the Law, words have meanings, that not the same meanings, that are accepted in common usage. our Constitution is the Constitution for the united States of America. The U.S. Constitution is the Constitution of Puerto Rico.

[Jerseee]

hAKEEM,

I was born free. I do not owe my existence to a fictitious entity called government. I do not owe my life to a business plan called the Constitution.

However, if you believe that you are a citizen of whatever--then you are. It is not my intention to deny anyone the protection of the government. It is my duty to remind them of their inherent power of sovereignty over fictitious things that lack jurisdiction.

To claim to be a citizen of something fictitious opens the doors of irresponsibility of a sovereign and allows the sovereign to become submissive to something not greater than themselves. It also opens the door to allow another sovereign to become one's master through voluntary servitude and abuse of public trust. this is why you have people always blaming "government" for their ills but they can't hang or prosecute government for its "allaged" treason.

[hAKEEM]

Said By birth never said Jersee or my-self I just said by birth just an example. Are we really free and choose to live in the system. We all choose are master we try to serve both but we truly cant. can we really walk away from everything and trust the almighty or live within a system and hope the almighty protect us.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by hAKEEM

By birth we are each a Citizen of the State of New Jersey, or a Citizen of the State of California, or a Citizen of the State Florida, or a Citizen of the State of whatever State you wherein we were born, and at the same time, we are all Citizens of the united States of America,

You are partially incorrect. Citizenship can only be voluntary submission. Nationality by jus sanguinis is natural upon birt; so one is a (insert state) national by birth. Also, it is impossible to be a (insert state) citizen unless there is a dejure body politic of (insert state) citizens. Because there is no dejure body politic of such citizens, then they cannot confer that citizenship on anyone. So all you can do now is claim state nationality via jus sanguinis.

Originally Posted by hAKEEM

AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ACTS OF CONGRESS, OTHER THAN THE 18 GRANTS OF POWERS SPECIFICALLY CITED IN THE Constitution for the united States of America.

Unfortunately, you have to provide sufficient evidence of your state nationality such as correspondence with the proper agencies, proper in pais challenges which involve the correct law necessary to accomplish this, etc . . If this admin record is not documented PRIOR TO (a priori notice); then claiming how big, bad, and sovereign you are on a brief is not going to work because you failed to rebut the initial presumption which may have triggered the whole action in the first place. Since this hardcore presumption is laid on you from the Birth Cert; then it must be challenged/rebutted/cancelled adn your status challenges must be documented in order to be entered in as exhibits along with your brief.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by internet email

JURIDICAL STATUS

Article 12. - Personal status

1. The personal status of a stateless person shall be governed by the
law of the country of his domicile or, if he has no domicile, by the law
of the country of his residence .
The people who are expatriating in Mexico do not have a domicile or a
residence. They are claiming to be a man or woman upon the land, living
under a higher authority. Some folks may not believe in or understand a
higher authority, but we do not shut them out because we have different
beliefs. As I told you in our conversation, I would like to see your
process and would be willing to work with you to establish the State
National Group. I believe that even though we claim to be stateless, we
are not doomed to roam the world alone. America is not a country, but a
land mass. What were the people upon the land in America before there
were territories or states? Men and women came to America to be free. As
stated in the Declaration of Independence,
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation .
and
“ In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress
in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only
by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people
.”
We are free men and women upon the land, claiming our natural and God
given rights.

2. Rights previously acquired by a stateless person and dependent on
personal status, more particularly rights attaching to marriage, shall
be respected by a Contracting State, subject to compliance, if this be
necessary, with the formalities required by the law of that State,
provided that the right in question is one which would have been
recognized by the law of that State had he not become stateless.
I believe that we all are working towards the same goal, though we may
be approaching it in slightly different directions. We are not looking
to get in a pissing match with anyone, We are looking to work with folks
who can help us achieve the freedom we are all looking for and we are
willing to share what we have found. Most of what has been learned has
been by trial and error. We are all looking to help keep people from
making the same errors that have already been proven not to work. We
have seen good things happening and are willing to share them freely
with anyone who wants to know.
Tom

Article 13. - Movable and immovable property
The Contracting States shall accord to a stateless person treatment as
favourable as possible and, in any event, not less favourable than that
accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances, as regards the
acquisition of movable and immovable property and other rights
pertaining thereto, and to leases and other contracts relating to
movable and immovable property.

Article 14. - Artistic rights and industrial property
In respect of the protection of industrial property, such as inventions,
designs or models, trade marks, trade names, and of rights in literary,
artistic and scientific works, a stateless person shall be accorded in
the country in which he has his habitual residence the same protection
as is accorded to nationals of that country. In the territory of any
other Contracting State, he shall be accorded the same protection as is
accorded in that territory to nationals of the country in which he has
his habitual residence.

Article 15. - Right of association
As regards non-political and non -profit- making associations and trade
unions the Contracting States shall accord to stateless persons lawfully
staying in their territory treatment as favourable as possible, and in
any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in
the same circumstances.

Article 16. - Access to courts

1. A stateless person shall have free access to the courts of law on the
territory of all Contracting States.

2. A stateless person shall enjoy in the Contracting State in which he
has his habitual residence the same treatment as a national in matters
pertaining to access to the courts, including legal assistance and
exemption from cautio judicatum solvi.

3. A stateless person shall be accorded in the matters referred to in
paragraph 2 in countries other than that in which he has his habitual
residence the treatment granted to a national of the country of his
habitual residence.

Statelessness

There are people out there that are going to Mexico and expatriating.
Such people are professing to be stateless. (Organization) DOES NOT
condone this. If you look at the United Nations information (treaty) on
this these type people are subject to the law of the place they are
living. See info: http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/81.shtml If you
notice in that treaty, not only are stateless people subject to the law
of the country of which they live, they have all benefits of the country
they are in. Statelessness in this day and age under this treaty follows
the doctrines of Marxism. The Communist Manifesto demands the
elimination of countries and nationalities. Anyone that is claiming
this is falling right into the New World Order plot. (Organization) is
against the New World Order and its Marxism. We are about claiming our
rightful nationalities and gaining our countries back and being able to
govern them without the Marxism of the UN. I hope this gets through to
you and hope that this brings some good discussion and understanding. I
advise to stop attempting to find an easy, self-centered way out. Best
regards, LB Bork "Those who believe in nothing will believe in
anything."

However I uphold that the simple state of statelessness is making no claim at all.

In reference to illegal immigrants the chief of police recently published that nobody here will be arrested simply for having no identification. Nice two-edged sword, huh?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by hAKEEM

Said By birth never said Jersee or my-self I just said by birth just an example. Are we really free and choose to live in the system. We all choose are master we try to serve both but we truly cant. can we really walk away from everything and trust the almighty or live within a system and hope the almighty protect us.

Great discussion hAKEEM!!!

If you do not believe that you are really free--then you are not. If you have not faith in yourself and in the Almighty, then you don't. If you believe that you cannot protect yourself--then you can't.

Conversely, it is not your burden to prove jurisdiction or even allegance for that matter. Additionally, the created cannot be greater than the creator.

Wies,

How on earth is one to rebut anything at birth? Without the capacity to contract--there is no contract.

David,

I don't use their definitions or meanings to prove my point. When I use their tools against them, it is more in line of telling them to practice what they preach.

great thread!! Can't wait for this one to get derailed when newbies start asking real questions and learning from our dialogue.

Admin,

Please be on alert. We know that there are those that will do what they can within the bounds of our rules to skillfully mislead the uniformed.

have fun

[weishaupt1776]

Jersee, so if an agency comes after a foreign diplomat and he wishes to sue them at the Federal Court of Claims;

• can he just claim "I'm a diplomat" in a brief and they'll believe him
  OR
• does he have to provide evidence of such as an exhibit in order to demonstrate his diplomatic status?

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Jersee, so if an agency comes after a foreign diplomat and he wishes to sue them at the Federal Court of Claims;

• can he just claim "I'm a diplomat" in a brief and they'll believe him
  OR
• does he have to provide evidence of such as an exhibit in order to demonstrate his diplomatic status?

Hey Weis!

Good question, although loaded.

To answer I will have to assume the accused is arguing. If this is the case--he will lose. however, if he is accused of something--the question can always be asked to prove jurisdiction. Further he can state who he is, the last bit of info that I have come to know is that it is their burden to prove that the accused is not sovereign. if they can dispell universal truths about man, government, and the Almighty--then I'd say he's going down.

Moreover, i cannot assume that one side will believe the other based on a brief. But I can say that one side will have no choice but to believe the other if their affidavit cannot be rebutted or proven wrong. But you and i know that folks get railroaded daily.

This does not extinguish the fact that sovereignty rests with us and they cannot prove that it does not--nor will they ever. You and I both know that they will not come out and say that government is superior and has jurisdiction over mankind. It will say that it has jurisdiction over its "CITIZENS" which whom they created. This goes back to my statement, "the created cannot be greater than the creator".

Now if you were looking for a "yes" or "no" answer without an explanation, my bad--but that is exactly how they railroad folks. For example, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?"

Good post, let's keep it going Weis.

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Jersee, so if an agency comes after a foreign diplomat and he wishes to sue them at the Federal Court of Claims;

• can he just claim "I'm a diplomat" in a brief and they'll believe him
  OR
• does he have to provide evidence of such as an exhibit in order to demonstrate his diplomatic status?

In the United States, foreign diplomats present credentials issued by their home government to the Secretary of State (State Department).

Once the credentials are accepted, the diplomat (and appropriate members of his family) is issued an identification card that indicates his dilpomatic status.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Hey Weis!

Good question, although loaded.

To answer I will have to assume the accused is arguing. If this is the case--he will lose. however, if he is accused of something--the question can always be asked to prove jurisdiction. Further he can state who he is, the last bit of info that I have come to know is that it is their burden to prove that the accused is not sovereign. if they can dispell universal truths about man, government, and the Almighty--then I'd say he's going down.

When you put in an affidavit and breif that you are the Sovereign as spoken of in Yick Wo, it's most def noodle bakin' time:

"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed *370 to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion, or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of
the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For the very
idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins 6 S.Ct. 1064 Page 15
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064)

They have the burden of going forward saying that you are not of the Superior Sovereign People. However, I believe that they take silent judicial notice that you are not by considering what adhesion contracts one may have such as the BC, DL, SS, etc. . . Even though those are not real bonafide contracts, they do present presumptions which should be rebutted. Judge, if I am not of the sovereign, then am I a slave of a created government as spoken of in Yick Wo?

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Moreover, i cannot assume that one side will believe the other based on a brief. But I can say that one side will have no choice but to believe the other if their affidavit cannot be rebutted or proven wrong. But you and i know that folks get railroaded daily.

The thing is what Andy brought up is that diplomats can prove that they are by the ID card issued by the SOS, so there is their evidence to present that the Gov has recognized them as a foreign diplomat.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Now if you were looking for a "yes" or "no" answer without an explanation, my bad--but that is exactly how they railroad folks.

Nope not looking for a "yes"/"no".

Originally Posted by Jerseee

"Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?"

With all due respect, do you have any evidence immediately within your possesion, control, or custody which demonstrates that I have ever beat my wife?