Patriot Folklore

[weishaupt1776]

http://www.pacinlaw.org/info/myths_faq.php

There is a pdf doc at the bottom

[Godssun]

These noted issues become even more complicated due to the political status that is held under the 14th Amendment system. This establishes the legal nexus of a man to the statutory scheme created by a legislature. This is the primary agreement where one has agreed to be controlled by statutes.

So the application of statutes to "one" was never done before the 14th Amendment?

3) I'M A STATE CITIZEN
You do not have jurisdiction over me because I am a “state citizen”.
This workaround is practically the same as the capital ‘C’ citizen. It will also get you nowhere.
People are getting this from the principles of the original Constitution. Like the capital ‘C’ citizen ruse, what people are trying to accomplish here is to claim that they are not 14th Amendment citizens. The problem is they probably are due to the fact they have done nothing to terminate the citizenship. The court will consider that you are such a citizen under a legal rule called a “legal fiction”. A legal fiction is a presumption made by a court due to the lack of evidence to the contrary of which the court formulates its belief. There are plenty of legal fictions based on facts and legal doctrines that will show that you are a 14th Amendment citizen.

So without doing any status correction or anything else one can issue discovery. One asks for discovery from the plaintiff if there are any presumptions of the defendants "citizenship" being relied upon for jurisdiction. When the discovery answer comes back "no" one simply files a motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction because there is no presumption.

The only that gets this all worked up in a bind is the motion to dismiss is overruled because the citizenship presumption is just another Patriot Folklore, this time courtesy of PAC.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Godssun

So the application of statutes to "one" was never done before the 14th Amendment?

There had to be some kind of nexus under private law, just like there is today

They could have made clear language of who

Originally Posted by Godssun

So without doing any status correction or anything else one can issue discovery. One asks for discovery from the plaintiff if there are any presumptions of the defendants "citizenship" being relied upon for jurisdiction. When the discovery answer comes back "no" one simply files a motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction because there is no presumption.

They can move forward because you have a DL, unchallenged BC,etc . .

And ALOT of times they deny discovery, so the status docs pretty much clobber them BEFORE you go to "court"

Anyway, Cody - we have the IRS shakin' in there boots at the USDC in upstte NY. I know our sh!t works

Your little "discovery" deal is mere intellectual conjecture, yet to be tested

[Godssun]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

They can move forward because you have a DL, unchallenged BC,etc . .

And ALOT of times they deny discovery, so the status docs pretty much clobber them BEFORE you go to "court"

I have never had such discovery denied. The court is not petitioned in Discovery until a motion to compel is sought. You speak like you do not know about discovery.

You say ALOT (not a real word). All it takes is once. The record can be made to show that the prosecution's jurisdiction does not depend on BC or DL. No court ever in my life has had a persons BC on record, EVER. Not in any tax case or any other case apart from deportation hearings. The driver's license is not a part of any case for driving without a license and the BC is not included ever ever ever.

Discovery can be made. When it is denied to you that is because you asked for it improperly.

[Godssun]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

And ALOT, upstte, "there boots" NY.

I bet they are shking in there butes. Maybee beecoause them couldn.t read yr answr and new you were a maverck?

[Godssun]

"There had to be some kind of nexus under private law, just like there is today"

The 14th is just a statute passed by 2/3.

So what is the "nexus" that makes the 14th apply to me so as to create a presumption of federal citizenship?

Let me be more clear. What paper (DL, BC...) do I need to "already" posses to create a nexus whereas the 14th amendment can be made applicable to me and thereby create a presumption of federal citizenship?

[weishaupt1776]

Another bump for a killer article and for Code-EE

[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by Godssun

So the application of statutes to "one" was never done before the 14th Amendment?



So without doing any status correction or anything else one can issue discovery. One asks for discovery from the plaintiff if there are any presumptions of the defendants "citizenship" being relied upon for jurisdiction. When the discovery answer comes back "no" one simply files a motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction because there is no presumption.

Perhaps a more appropriate question to the prosecution/plaintiff would be: "Does the prosecution/plaintiff recognize the accused/defendant as being on the high seas?" "The jurisdiction of Admiralty is its ship." Citizenship is a relatively moot issue if your on a ship.

[Godssun]

Originally Posted by amenmesse

Perhaps a more appropriate question to the prosecution/plaintiff would be: "Does the prosecution/plaintiff recognize the accused/defendant as being on the high seas?" "The jurisdiction of Admiralty is its ship." Citizenship is a relatively moot issue if your on a ship.

Sure. The prosecution will answer "no".

Then you will move to dismiss and the judge will rule against you stating that you are not in Admiralty jurisdiction. Then you will not listen to the judge, will not learn, you will accuse the system of being wrong and then continue to keep losing the same way.

[netwrkranger]

Hi Cody or whatever you desire to be called these days...,

Question for you. Do you still deny that citizen = subject?