Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 9370 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason by anyone. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products. When you post a comment, it is in the public domain. You have no copyright that can be enforced against any other individual who comments here! Do not attempt to copyright your comments. If that is not to your liking please do not comment. Any attempt to copyright a comment will be deleted. Copyright is a legal term that means the creator of original content. This does not include ideas. You are not an author of articles on this blog. Your comments are deemed donated to the public domain. They will be considered "fair use" on this blog. People donate to this blog because of what Anna writes and what Paul writes, not what the people commenting write. We are not using your comments. You are putting them in the public domain when you comment. What you write in the comments is your opinion only. This comment section is not a court of law. Do not attempt to publish any kind of "affidavit" in the comments. Any such attempt will also be summarily deleted. Comments containing foul language will be deleted no matter what is said in the comment.

Friday, November 2, 2018

Dual Versus Singular Citizenship

By Anna Von Reitz

One of the things that sets "U.S. Citizenship" apart from American State Citizenship is duality. The Federales --- from their standpoint anyway --- are content to let you keep your "state citizenship" intact and still also be considered a "U.S. Citizen". As it says in their 14th Amendment --- "citizen of the United States" and "the state in which they reside".

[Please note --- it's their 14th Amendment, not ours, and it's an "Amendment" to their corporation's Articles of Incorporation disguised as "a" Constitution. And you are right, their 14th Amendment was never ratified by the States of the Union, for the simple reason that amending the By-Laws of a Scottish commercial corporation only requires approval by the Board of Directors --- in this case, the Territorial United States Congress.]

The problem is that the Federales can't alter the rules that the States adopted, which require a single State Citizenship.

The actual States don't recognize Dual Citizenship. You are either a Minnesotan or you are not.
It doesn't matter to them if you came from Germany or Zimbabwe. You have the option once you have immigrated through the U.S. and established your new permanent domicile on the land of Minnesota to declare yourself a Minnesotan.

When you do, you have to leave all other claims of foreign allegiance and nationality behind. The Founders considered Dual Citizenship to be "serving two Masters" and an inherent "conflict of interest" that could not be condoned.

So, if you wish to retain your identity as a Wisconsinite, you have to go whole hog or none.

Wisconsin will not recognize you as one of its own if you voluntarily retain any other political allegiance, including any allegiance to the Territorial State of Wisconsin or the Municipal STATE OF WISCONSIN. You have to cleave to the actual State and not merely "reside" there on a temporary basis, if you want to be recognized as an American State Citizen.

Throughout most of our history this was clearly understood and it was also understood that our people sometimes migrated back and forth between their State Citizenship and "United States Citizenship". Men who served in the military were considered to be on a temporary "loan" to the United States and to be "residing" in Federal jurisdiction during their period of service obligation, but returned home upon discharge from the service. Same thing with Congressional Delegates, who did their business in the District of Columbia, and then returned home to their home States.

The First Naturalization Act passed by the United States Congress described a lengthy process by which an American State Citizen could transition to permanent United States Citizenship, if they wished to do so. It required posting Notices over time and supporting oneself without public assistance and committing no felonies, etc., There is no doubt that adopting "United States Citizenship" versus birthright citizenship as a Citizen of Maine, was a sober, deliberate, and lengthy process.

Also, all new immigrants had to pass through "United States Citizenship" before adopting a final State Citizenship, and again, the decision to adopt State Citizenship required deliberate action on the part of each one.

Say that you came from Germany originally. You would first pass through the Naturalization process and become a "United States Citizen". You were then free to move about the country and not subject to the INS anymore, no green cards, no quasi-parole status as a visitor--- but you were not a State Citizen.

In order to become a State Citizen, you had to (and still have to) meet other requirements and make the deliberate choice to "declare" your intention and publish it and establish a home in the State of your choice and stay there for a stipulated period of time (usually a year) without committing any felonies or making use of public assistance.

There is a famous case from Minnesota (Rheume) that discusses the necessity of immigrants declaring their State Citizenship.

The fundamental difference is that "U.S. Citizens" occupy the Federal jurisdiction within a State and "reside" in the federated "States of States", whereas State Citizens live in their State of the Union.
Example: An active duty Lieutenant in the US Air Force lives in the State of South Dakota, but my friend Anne lives in South Dakota "proper".

Think in terms of Army bases like Fort Hood, for example, which exists within the borders of Texas. You have people from every State who live within the confines of Fort Hood which is Federal Territory within Texas and for the term of their service obligation, all those active duty personnel are "U.S. Citizens" living in the "State of Texas" even though they may have been born in Texas and have their natural birthright nationality and citizenship as Texans.

When they leave active duty and inform the General Staff of the Army that they are returning home to Texas and their birthright political status, they pop back into view as Texans and as State Citizens of Texas.

The British Territorial United States and the Municipal United States oligarchy run by the members of the Territorial Congress have long sought to keep everyone in the status of "U.S. Citizen" because that allows them to tax and control and make claims against the assets of the people involved. It is that monetary self-interest that has led to most of the abuses we now suffer and also to the corruption of the courts and the obfuscation of the facts about State Citizenship.

They don't want you to know that you can adopt your lawful State Citizenship and enjoy your freedoms and the guarantees of the Constitutions, because they lose money and control when you renounce "U.S. Citizenship" in favor of, for example, Texas Citizenship.

Nonetheless it is your birthright as an American, and so long as you are not a federal employee, dependent, or "voluntarily" operating as a U.S. corporation, THEY have nothing to say about it, except, "Yes, Sir!"


See this article and over 1300 others on Anna's website here:

To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.


  1. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. REUM(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.May 29, 1893.)and not otherwise. ARE YOU A U.S. CITIZEN BY CHOICE OR BY PRESUMPTION? Google it! Thank the Informer

  2. Feds controls the process of naturalization how to become a citizen. but. States controld immigration . Immigration is ppl crossing borders.
    unfortunately we let the feds controld it all.

  3. COLLET v. COLLET, 2 U.S. 294 (1792)

  4. This may be useful:
    And this: The Expatriation Act of 1868 was an act of the 40th United States Congress regarding the right to renounce one's citizenship. ... The Expatriation Act of 1868 was codified at 25 Rev. Stat. § 1999, and then by 1940 had been re-enacted at 8 U.S.C. § 800.

  5. I was born in Toledo, am 76 and retired for three years in Florida.
    Can I become a citizen of the state of Florida and renounce my U.S. citizenship?

    1. Unknown, my personal advice is, you are now retired and out of the snow belt, living in the sunshine, go enjoy your life just as much as you can, every minute you can, and stop worrying about all this stuff. I highly doubt at your age, you are going to be affected by it in any way.
      Go Live.

  6. Also I don't know how to get rid of the unknown part.

  7. Where it says "Comment as:" under the comment text box, click the down arrow and it will say select profile. Select Name/Profile, and put your name in the name box, and leave the URL box empty then click continue.
    Then write you comments and click publish.

  8. The wheat and the tares the weeds are spread over the wheat growing. Up together reconciled at maturity. Can you see the tare tory now?

    1. dennis, the tares are going to be gathered up and burned. Period. Finally their day is over with. Tares are never gonna get reconciled.
      I grew up on a farm, so I know that tares look like wheat, but as a child we used to squish them and instead of hard little grains of wheat in that shaft, it would puff into dust. This means that tares are empty of any value; worthless, good for nothing at all except to appear as fake wheat. So you see there is nothing about tares to be reconciled.

  9. Question: If I, born on the land of New York, never willingly or knowingly elected to become a Citizen of the U.S. Corporation, than why do I have to do all the paperwork to opt out of their system? Why can't I just present my birth certificate to the land recorder in my state in order to prove I'm an American National? Not a U.S. Citizen required to obey "their" laws and pay "their" taxes?

    1. When we did all that stuff, there was NO FULL DISCLOSURE, therefore I consider it fraud, and even according to the law, when there is a failure of full disclosure it is fraud. Diff words but means the same thing.
      In fact none of us ever even knew that our gov was a 'corporation' right there we did not have full disclosure. As far as I am concerned, they can take their entire Fraud Game and shove it where the sun doesnt shine.

      Just about everything today is Fraud; so anyone who thinks I am going to do paperwork on every little shitty bit of their fraud, is nuts. Who wants to spend their life 'undoing fraud' upon our Self??
      Mortgages are fraud; and you see how The People have had little to zero success in fighting that crap. Bottom line, I just am not going to spend my life Fighting.

    2. Hmmmm. Just a thought in general...

      There are many things in life growing up, that we humans really hate to do. Because, our "moms " use to be responsible for doing those tasks. There were guy jobs and girl jobs(something most milenials got short changed on due to the changes in most family structures with the invention of new ideas and fancy merchadice). Women taking on Jobs along with men.
      Everything can be difficult or easy.
      Some people would rather bitch and moan(not speaking of anyone in particular, because so many of us are guilty of it at one time or another) about something than just do it.
      Some people like to work "HARD"(work ethic or guilt ethic??)
      I have always said"I prefer to work efficiently and do the task once expending the least effort possible. Measure once,cut twice.
      What's my point?
      Everything in life is a matter of your "inner perspectitive". of the things I and many I have dealt with in life, was the hated washing of dishes. (anyone who ever had roommates knows what I mean)prefering(before dish washers) to just put them in the sink and bitch about it when days later they are forced to deal with it. You can all relate to that I am sure.
      How did "I" get passed that delema? (even though in a family of seven foster boys where we all were expected to learn to do it)
      I met a simple man in a bar, having a drink who shared with me a small story on perspective when I was young...about dishes.

      He said he used to look at the sink and cuss because he had to wash his. Till, one day he noticed that the dishes seemed to be staring at him...asking him,
      "Wash me!"
      He never had a problem again.
      Little stuff like that has a tendency to stick with you
      once you hear it. And neither did I.
      Lol and we thought we had problems, compare that to today.


    3. I am thinking of taking up story writing....seems fulfilling. Such a better use of time than attack and attack back antics... it gets old and redundant. And doesn't serve anybody.πŸ™„πŸ’–

    4. Oh CJ shut up. I said nothing derogatory to You and I have just as much right to my opinion as You do. You are not of any special importance, and You sure are not my boss. In fact You are so johnny-one-note and so wrapped up in One thing, that You don't know how to do anything else.
      Your real problem is that You can't stand anyone to disagree with You. So who is full of themSELVES around here; its You.
      You know very well what I posted IS every bit the Truth; maybe you are the one who needs to come off your highhorse and admit .....The Truth isn't always gonna line up with You.

      So CJ, go stuff it, before I decide not to be so nice to you.

    5. Abby threatens to unleast her not 'nice' side on CJπŸ˜‚

      Her good ole ChrπŸ•‡stπŸ•‡an hex?☇πŸ€•πŸ˜…πŸŽƒ

    6. It has become quite obvious by now that the real reason some folks try to push everyone to ''do their paperwork'' is because those folks want to establish a new Right Government, and it takes folks who have done their 'papers' to be qualified for their Continental Congress.

      That is the real reason for the 'Big Push' - but those who are struggling and confused about doing their papers, and having many questions - which nobody seems to answer them - are being led to think it will give them freedom.

      We've even seen a few in her all excited saying they finally completed all their paperwork and exclaiming 'Now Im Free''.
      I kept saying that just recording papers is only a small part of gaining Freedom. Finally, Anna came out and admitted the same thing. That it then took knowing how to use them. To which I said I really do not think most folks are capable of standing up to judges and using their papers successfully. And I further stated that there would need to be Law Counselors the People can hire if they are ever faced with Court.

      All of that is The Truth. There is noone that can refute that I don't care who you are. Those that get hauled into court, we have all seen are those that appear to have not gone past the 10th grade. Because that is who the police make it a point to nab. That is just how our society is today. Anyone who doesn't believe that, go sit in court and watch who the 'accused'' are.

      Ive also said numerous times, anyone who wants to record all their papers can feel free to do so. However, I look far past all that, and I don't even object to a Continental Congress being successfully established.
      But I then think further yet, and if they get rid of some junk, and make some New Laws, WHO is going to acknowledge ANY of what they do?
      WHO? We know that those in power will never give up their seats, will never move over and let anyone or anything remove them and take over with what is Right. So if anyone can tell me just exactly HOW they intend to get rid of all the thousands of skunks in power, and how 'You" think you are going to replace them, then I will be happy to hear it.

      THIS is the Truth. And all Truth is Light. All Truth is not pretty, nor is it always palatable.

      In fact, for anyone who really thinks a Rightful Continental Congress is going to be of real effect and be obeyed - watch what happens when Tuesday comes and these snowflake communist liberal anti-american demorats get replaced in D.C. and elsewhere.
      Watch how they react to just that loss of position, all across the country. Then tell me how they will react to a continental congress. Yes, a normal common sense person ought to be thrilled at getting a Right and True government, but we know the majority of our population has NO common sense.

      So it is NOT about this rather small Group doing what is Right and Good - it hinges on how such a majority of our population has NO appreciation for what is Right and Good. They dont even have any common sense.

      And THAT is where the real problem lies. And ''they' have already dug the rabbit hole so deep, it is now like a tornado struck a yarn warehouse; there is no one who can untangle all the strings and put it back together again. That is about the size of things.
      This should have been 20 years ago. Now I see it as being out of hand. And like Ive said, folks are looking for all the right things, in all the wrong places.
      So be it.

  10. I was out the other evening at a Kava bar. It was Mike night.
    This one girl sang and was absolutely beyond amazing...I would have bought her CD's had she had any, that voice!
    Well I was feeling inspired and decided to do a bucket list check off. First time stand up comedy. I have plenty of life experience to draw from and I am always spreading humor where it is deficient.

    The first ten minutes went quite one looked miserable. So I thought I would hand over the Mike till I heard the clapping...thought let's do a little more and everyone was like yeah. Then I guess the spontaneousness started to rapidly go south... mostly from my effort of trying too hard🀣the faces were actually wincing...I was missing my timing. I wrapped it up and thanked everyone for the experience. Knowing next time writing them down before hand was the wise option. Next time. There is so much life to enjoy...sad that we allow ourselves to get wrapped up in our head over things we have no "real" control over,when we have real existing reality and choices all around us for now.😏

  11. C.Johnson - I am interested to KNOW - I recorded Basic Forms, but was informed right away that the Record will not be searchable online ... therefore, I am not sore what the record itself is doing for me? I understand the importance of it, but don' t really understand what the fact that it is "recorded" in some Miscellaneous files can/do for me? So I was looking for different recorder who will record it as searchable online (even though I am not sure if it does anything? - it' s searchable, but will a judge search it???) - so I send an extension of the basic Forms (Notice of the Claim for the Life, per Anna, it states right under the title of it- Action: Claim and Conveyance, per Anna von Reitz), to different recorder - they sent it back to me (stating that the document has no title (?) and with it they sent THEIR paper, when I send it back so they know what to do with it - their paper say it is NO-CONVEYANCE!- to them) - I was/I am very confused 1. not only don't know again what it really does for me to record it even if it would be searchable online 2. I am claiming Conveyance, they record it as No-conveyance? It was my understanding that their job is to RECORD not change Conveyance to No-Conveyance...Could you shed some light to it? I would mostly appreciate it!

  12. Anna, 8 U.S.C. §1401 Makes one a U.S/statutory citizen, not the 14th amendment!
    There are TWO main LEGAL contexts
    – Relates to the states of the Union and EXCLUDES
    federal territory and legislative jurisdiction of
    Congress over SOVEREIGN states of the Union
    – Defines “United States” as states of the Union
    – Relates to federal territory and EXCLUDES states of
    the Union.
    – Defines “United States” as federal territory not
    within any state of the Union
    • A CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen of the United
    States” is a STATUTORY “non-resident”.
    They are NOT the same CONTEXTS!
    – Referenced in Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1
    U.S. Constitution:
    Fourteenth Amendment
    Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States[***] and subject to THE [POLITICAL AND NOT LEGISLATIVE] jurisdiction thereof, are [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    – Called a “citizen of the United States”
    – Defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401.
    – Called a “national and citizen of the United States** at birth” in Title 8 of
    the U.S. Code.
    – ALSO called an “American Citizen” or “citizen of the United States” by
    the federal courts.
    – THIS is the ONLY type of “citizen” mentioned in the Internal Revenue Code
    26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 Income tax on individuals
    (c ) Who is a citizen.
    Every person born or naturalized in the [federal] United States and subject to ITS
    [NATIONAL GOVERNMENT’S LEGISLATIVE] jurisdiction is a [STATUTORY] citizen.
    For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of
    title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §1401-1459). "
    An 8 U.S.C. §1401 “U.S. citizen” is what I refer to as a STATUTORY “U.S. citizen”.
    • STATUTORY “U.S. citizens” are born in and domiciled within federal territories. You CANNOT be a STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” if you were born in a CONSTITUTIONAL state of the Union.
    There are Four “United States”
    In addition to the THREE geographical “United States”, the term is also used in connection with the “United States” government as a LEGAL PERSON.
    Context # 4 below is the context for most federal law, including the Internal Revenue Code. See:
    # Meaning
    1 United States Geographical Country United States
    2 United States Geographical Federal territory
    3 United States Geographical States of the Union
    4 United States Legal Government of the United States
    Text of 8 U.S.C. §1401 Nationals and citizens of the United States:
    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States], and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person.

    1. From Anna:

      The first thing you have to ask yourself is-- what is being amended? In this case the corporate "Constitution" of the British Territorial United States published in 1868.

      This is NOT a "Constitutional" context relating to the States of the Union. It related specifically to the operations of a Scottish commercial corporation doing business as "The United States of America" Incorporated also chartered in 1868.

      So that is where you first go off track and make an assumption that there IS a "constitutional context" related to the States of the Union involved when there isn't one.

      The only actual Constitutiomal Context for any of these issues that arguably applied to us occurs prior to 1868 and is stated as part of the US Statutes at Large, not the unpublished US Code.

      In talking about these things you have to keep the apples and oranges straight.

      The second thing you have to ask is what is the law and what is the statute? The law is the Amendment. The USC is the statute. Bear in mind that none of these Federal Codes are published in the Federal Register.

      These facts taken together add up to these being corporate laws and statutes that actually have nothing to do with us.

      And never did have anything to do with us.

      So thanks for the lengthy dissertation on Federal Citizenship of the Territorial and Municipal sort, but don't mistake the fact that none of it applies to us absent our "willful consent"--- which we don't give.

      And all the deceit otherwise is simply deceit, which is allowed under Roman Civil Law as long as--- and only as long as-- the victim is deceived and fails to object.

    2. Anna, I know that the constitution and statues has nothing to do with us. Hell, I even think the statues at large has nothing to do with us, Like a duck is a duck, a statue is a statue (and not law) and is for government, no matter how you or they try to "spin it". The Constitution, The U.S.C and all statues is for the government (employees)/public officers/residents. U.S citizens are considered to be government public officers without without them knowing it. If people people knew what was really going on they will never consent. I did not make the mistake of saying that any of it applies to us without our consent. I even mentioned this in my post that I titled: main points of citizenship confusion at the very end of my posting. In addition to my main points of citizen confusion post, The confusion came from the desire to destroy the
      separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE by confusing STATUTORY and CONSTITUTIONAL citizens.
      • Here is where this confusion started:
      "Under our own systems of polity, the term 'citizen', implying the same or similar relations to the government and to society which appertain to the term, 'subject' in
      England, is familiar to all. Under either system, the term used is designed to apply to man in his individual character and to his natural capacities -- to a being or agent [PUBLIC OFFICER!] possessing social and political rights and sustaining social, political, and
      moral obligations. It is in this acceptation only, therefore, that the term 'citizen', in the
      article of the Constitution, can be received and understood. When distributing the judicial
      power, that article extends it to controversies between 'citizens' of different states. This must mean the natural physical beings composing those separate communities, and can
      by no violence of interpretation be made to signify artificial, incorporeal, theoretical, and
      invisible creations. A corporation, therefore, being not a natural person, but a mere creature of the mind, invisible and intangible, cannot be a citizen of a state, or of the United States, and cannot fall within the terms or the power of the above mentioned article, and can therefore neither plead nor be impleaded in the courts of the United States.“
      [. . .]
      These principles are always traceable to a wise and deeply founded experience; they are
      therefore ever consentaneous and in harmony with themselves and with reason, and whenever abandoned as guides to the judicial course, the aberration must lead to bewildering uncertainty and confusion.”
      [Rundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Company, 55 U.S. 80, 99 (1852) from dissenting opinion by Justice Daniel]

      • In REAL ESTATE, the ONLY
      THREE things that matter are:
      – LOCATION
      – LOCATION
      – LOCATION
      • In LAW, the THREE things that
      matter in deducing the scope of a
      statute are:
      – CONTEXT
      – CONTEXT
      – CONTEXT

      I still believe that there are 2 main legal contexts-constitutional and statutory. In my post, I quoted Rogers v Bellei, 401 U.S 815 (1971) that proves this. I Would not be surprised if the government and the powers that be want conspiracy theorists to believe there is no constitutional context, for their own self serving reasons/interests!

    3. C. Johnson, an “individual”, as defined in 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2), which is a person with a domicile in the “United States”, which is geographically defined as the District of Columbia in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).

    4. C. Johnson, The constitution does not make anyone a constitutional citizen per say, constitutional citizen is a descriptive term to remove any confusion between constitutional and statutory and private and public. yes people had God given rights before the constitution. Before the constitution there was the declaration of independence and the articles of confederation (the articles of confederation was never repealed because the government still publishes the articles of confederation along with the constitution and the declaration of independence in the United states statues at large.) The constitution, articles of confederation and the declaration of independence are all pieces of the same puzzle that needs to be put together to make the whole puzzle.

    5. C. Johnson, I do get what you are saying, but in (thier) court of law, you have to use their statutory definitions. If you used the word individual in court, the judge will throw the book at you.

    6. Oh, I see what you mean now. You mean a stateless/governmentless man, woman or child. Sounds good to me! :)

    7. πŸ–’πŸ’˜πŸ’₯☇πŸ’›

  13. IMPORTANT things to note about the language used in 8 U.S.C. 1401:
    – “United State” used is the STATUTORY meaning.
    – “United States” used EXCLUDES the CONSTITUTIONAL meaning.
    – The phrase “subject to THE jurisdiction of the United States” LOOKS the same as that in the Fourteenth Amendment. Is NOT the same because it uses a DIFFERENT “United States” that includes ONLY federal territory. CANNOT mean someone in a state of the Union, because Congress has NO civil legislative jurisdiction there.
    Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971):
    “The Court today holds that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to Bellei [an 8 U.S.C. §1401(b) STATUTORY “citizen of the United States”]. [. . .] While conceding that Bellei is an American citizen, the majority states: 'He simply is not a Fourteenth-Amendment-first-sentence citizen.' Therefore, the majority reasons, the congressional revocation of his citizenship is not barred by the Constitution. I cannot accept the Court's conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the citizenship of some Americans and not others. [. . .]
    The Court today puts aside the Fourteenth Amendment as a standard by which to measure congressional action with respect to citizenship, and substitutes in its place the majority's own vague notions of 'fairness.' The majority takes a new step with the recurring theme that the test of constitutionality is the Court's own view of what is 'fair, reasonable, and right.' Despite the concession that Bellei was admittedly an American citizen, and despite the holding in Afroyim that the Fourteenth Amendment has put citizenship, once conferred, beyond the power of Congress to revoke, the majority today upholds the revocation of Bellei's citizenship on the ground that the congressional action was not 'irrational or arbitrary or unfair.' The majority applies the 'shock-the-conscience' test to uphold, rather than strike, a federal statute. It is a dangerous concept of constitutional law that allows the majority to conclude that, because it cannot say the statute is 'irrational or arbitrary or unfair,' the statute must be constitutional.
    Why Congress has NO legislative jurisdiction in a state of the Union:
    28 U.S.C. §3112
    Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)
    "It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649,
    Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation."
    The jurisdiction that Congress exercises over franchises (e.g.
    Social Security, Income Tax, etc) within states of the Union is NOT AUTHORIZED by the Constitution

  14. – But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize [LICENSE, using a Social Security Number] a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.”
    [License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224
    (1866)]Constitutional Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States”
    • “United States” defined as states of the Union and excluding
    federal territory, like the rest of the USA Constitution
    • Definition:
    "The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States, were not citizens [within the Constitution].“
    [Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]
    • You CANNOT be domiciled on federal territory and BE a Fourteenth Amendment citizen at the same time!
    • EXCLUDES STATUTORY citizens per 8 U.S.C. §1401
    Can ONLY be human beings. Excludes ARTIFICIAL entities or “persons”. See:
    “Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States.
    14 Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 13 Fed.Cas. 67 (C.C.D.La. 1870). Not being citizens of the United States, corporations accordingly have been declared unable "to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment or impairment by the law of a State." Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 561 (1869) . This conclusion was in harmony with the earlier holding in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869), to the effect that corporations were not within the scope of the privileges and immunities clause of state citizenship set out in Article IV, Sec. 2. See also Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126 (1912) ; Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908) ; Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Tobacco Growers, 276 U.S. 71, 89 (1928) ; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936) .
    [Annotated Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Research Service.

    – It is IMPOSSIBLE for a corporation or artificial person to BE a Fourteenth Amendment person!
    “subject to THE jurisdiction of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment means the POLITICAL jurisdiction. Note the use of the word “THEM”, meaning the STATES and NOT the national government:
    “This section [the Fourteenth Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union] political jurisdiction, and owing THEM [the state of the Union] direct and immediate allegiance.”
    [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]
    – It EXCLUDES the legislative jurisdiction of the NATIONAL government. CONSTITUTIONAL states are legislatively “foreign” and “alien” in relation to the national government:
    “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] [underlines added] [19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations, §884]
    "Territories' or 'territory' as including 'state' or 'states." While the term 'territories of the' United States may, under certain circumstances, include the states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of congress "territory" does not include a foreign state.
    [86 C.J.S. [Corpus, Juris, Secundum, Legal Encyclopedia], Territories]
    The who in “subject to THE jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment are the People in the states of the Union and NOT those on federal territory:
    "It is impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the states of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'"[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), [emphasis added]
    STATUTORY “national and citizen of the United States at birth”
    • Context: STATUTORY
    • “United States” defined as federal territory not within any state of the Union
    • CAN include ARTIFICIAL entities and “persons”, unlike
    CONSTITUTIONAL citizens.
    • Is a civil franchise status that is a privilege Defined in:
    – 8 U.S.C. §1401 as a “national and citizen of the United States at birth”.
    – 26 U.S.C. §3121(e).
    – 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).
    – CONSTITUTIONAL “Citizens”
    – CONSTITUTIONAL Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States”
    Main points of citizenship confusion
    • Nationality:
    – Is a political status.
    – Is defined by the Constitution, which is a political document.
    – Is synonymous with being a “national” within statutory law.
    – Is associated with a specific COUNTRY.
    – Is a product of birth or naturalization and NOT domicile.
    • Domicile:
    – Is a CIVIL/LEGAL status.
    – Cannot be acquired WITHOUT the EXPRESS consent of the person.
    – Is not even addressed in the Constitution.
    – Is defined by civil statutory law RATHER than the Constitution.
    – Is in NO WAY connected with one’s nationality.
    – Is usually connected with the word “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, or
    “inhabitant” in statutory law.
    – Is associated with a specific COUNTY and a STATE rather than a
    – Implies one is a “SUBJECT” of a SPECIFIC MUNICIPAL but not NATIONAL government.
    • NATIONALITY and DOMICILE are NOT equivalent!

  16. • Definition:
    “nationality – That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil [legal/statutory] status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization.“
    [Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990), p. 1025]
    • By “political status” above they mean:
    – STATUS under the CONSTITUTION and NOT statutory law.
    – Nationality and NOT domicile.
    • By “civil status” above they mean:
    – Domiciled on federal territory
    – STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” subject to CIVIL “acts of Congress” (law for
    GOVERNMENT and not PRIVATE people) per :
    » 8 U.S.C. §1401.
    » 26 U.S.C. §3121(e).
    » 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c ).
    – “taxpayer” per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14).
    – “driver” under the vehicle code.
    So What About Citizenship IS a Threat to Freedom?
    1. PRESUME that ALL of the FOUR contexts for "United States"
    are equivalent.
    citizens are EQUIVALENT under federal law. They are NOT. A
    CONSTITUTIONAL citizen is a "non-citizen national" under
    federal law and NOT a "citizen of the United States".
    3. PRESUME that "nationality" and "domicile" are equivalent. They are NOT.
    4. Use the word "citizenship" in place of "nationality" OR "domicile", and refuse to disclose WHICH of the two they mean in EVERY context.
    5. Confuse the POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL meaning of words with the CIVIL/STATUTORY context. For instance, asking on government forms whether you are a POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL citizen and then FALSELY PRESUMING that you are a STATUTORY citizen under 8 U.S.C. §1401.
    6. Confuse the words "domicile" and "residence" or impute either to you without satisfying the burden of proving that you EXPRESSLY CONSENTED to it and thereby illegally kidnap your civil legal identity against your will. One can have only one "domicile" but many "residences" and BOTH require your consent.
    7. Add things or classes of things to the meaning of statutory terms that do not EXPRESSLY appear in their definitions, in violation of the rules of statutory construction.
    8. Refuse to allow the jury to read the definitions in the law and then give them a definition that is in conflict with the statutory definition. This substitutes the JUDGE’S will for what the law expressly says and thereby substitutes PUBLIC POLICY for the written law.
    9. Publish deceptive government publications that are in deliberate conflict with what the statutes define "United States" as and then tell the public that they CANNOT rely on the publication. The IRS does this with ALL of their publications and it is FRAUD.

  17. Federal Courts AGREE!
    “The expression, citizen of a state, used in the previous paragraph,is carefully omitted here [the Fourteenth Amendment]. In article 4, §2, subd. 1. of the constitution of the United States, it had been already provided. that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." The rights of citizens of the states and of citizens of the United States are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. [83 U. S.] 36, recently decided by the supreme court . The rights of citizens of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.”
    [U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed.Cas. 829, 830 (1874);

    “It would be the vainest show of learning to attempt to prove by citations of authority, that up to the adoption of the recent Amendments [the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment], no claim or pretense was set up that those rights depended on the Federal government for their existence or protection, beyond the very few express limitations which the Federal Constitution imposed upon the states—such as the prohibition against ex post facto laws, bill of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts. But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the states, and without that of the Federal government. Was it the purpose of the 14th Amendment, by the simple declaration that no state should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the states to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the states?
    We are convinced that no such result was intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the states, which ratified them. Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the states as such, and that they are left to the state governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no state can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so."
    [Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873) , emphasis added]

  18. C. Johnson - thank you! I appreciate all your words: ...4.) Will they take your RECORD out of their normal for all eyes only betcha! - I recorded mine in a small county where I even don't live, they will remove it from "their system" - really? or do I have to inform all I can think of including IRS? Also, someone kind from this group send me some information that Universal Postal Union accepts our autographs in gold or purple and to AVOID red ! All the records I recorded up to now I autographed in red = am I putting myself in danger ? (like on FBI list or something?)

  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

  20. Very Well done!!! Thank you Michael for this work and priceless contribution!!
    Much Gratitude, Love, Awareness and Peace Be Now for All

  21. C. Johnson, I should have stated in the beginning that I quoted the above from sedm.orgs digital publication titled: Why the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT a Threat to Your Freedom Form #08.015. is an excellent source of law both statutory and constitutional! I also recommend that you read sedms article about IRS form 56, available @

  22. " is an excellent source of law both statutory and constitutional! I also recommend that you read sedms article about IRS form 56, available @ " michael

    Yes, completely agree with this valuable/priceless resource available for All!!! Thank you for the disclosure and for the introduction anf posting to this great resource (fully documented via topic) for the newly awakened and for the reminder to those of us that choose to keep learning everyday!! Thank you!!

    Much Gratitude, Love, Awareness and Peace Be Now for All

  23. C.Johnson....Your contribution to this blog and prior postings as well as Michael Schnitzer's posting on this blog are extremely valuable for all serious people which follow the writings of Anna on her site. I personally have followed Anna's writings for quite some time, it is much at times to wrap your mind around after being so indoctrinated your entire life.

    I have filed the documents in posting 928 with the county recorder's office in my birth state... no problem, I believe they were excited to receive the filing fees.

    There are a few questions which you or someone might care to respond for the benefit of myself and others... 1) What is the value of a a proper passport (not issued in capacity as a US citizen)in addition to our filings which refute and correct our prior registrations? IF of value any guidance...? 2) In addition, to filing a well stated IRS Form 56 ( as outlined in what other correspondence to the IRS etal would you suggest to remove your records from their system? Finally, 3) C.J do you have a comprehensive checklist of needed filings everyone should complete beyond those enumerated in Anna's postings in 928 ??

    Again, thank you for your insight with simplicity, Michael Schnitzer's postings are valuable if one needs to "get into the weeds" of the law. At times, your eyes glaze over with a re-reading of the material. Both of your many postings are much appreciated.

    1. C.J Thank you for your lengthy response. Yes, I agree the documents should speak for you with the constitution. That will be my final project, I am sure it would be very intimidating to any "government official". By nature and training, I am not a shy person, that won't be a problem.

      As I watch the protests in downtown New York this afternoon (regarding Mueller) I am drafting affidavits to all those agencies with instructions to respond in writing that my RECORDS are deleted from the Public System. Did you have any problem obtaining these responses within your 30 day time frame? Being large bureaucratic agencies, this would be a feat in itself.

      Currently, I own and live in a property in Arizona but I was born in Iowa. Two questions, if you know, should I be filing a deed to my birth given name in the Iowa County I was born ? How about a recording in Maricopa county, Arizona? Anna spoke about doing a metes and bound description for such a deed. However, I live in a condominium which might be a challenge for an assessor. Any thoughts ??

      I am attempting to finish all these filings with responses before the coming Christmas holidays for my sister and myself.

      Thank you in advance for any other suggestions.

    2. Richard,'s path to freedom ebook is a check list you can do.

  24. C. Johnson, I recommended sedms about the irs form 56 article for the public officer info the article contains. I did not mean to keep refering the 14th amendment to you, I was just saying where I got the information from. Most people in america are U.S citizens/public officers and they should change that so Statues, and codes are important to learn about, and because statues and codes apply/ are meant to be for all government employees/public officers, including police officers!

    Government and its employees assume and presume that they have jurisdiction over you, because that is the norm (most people in america are U.S citizens and do not know any better!) I know you already know that government gets its jurisdiction over someone by this someone (unknowingly) contracts with the government- i.e by filling out government forms/applications, by getting a drivers license (and by apllying for any type of license), etc, etc! But being subject to government jurisdiction starts when the parent(s) of a infant filled out social security form ss-5 to give the infant a social(ist) (un)security number.

    Yes, I do make use of the common law and I have divorced myself from the government. I do not have a drivers license, nor do I register my truck and I do not have plates/tags on my truck, I bought custom made private plates. As to how I assert my rights when I get pulled over by a police officer, I give the police officer a clipboard that contains all of the following: A public servant questionaire, wich I am lawfully able to do under the privacy act of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (the questionaire puts the police officer on notice, even if he or she does not sign the questionaire), a copy of the irs form 56 and a copy of the Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee document that I have filled out and sent together to the irs, and an INJURY DEFENSE FRANCHISE AND AGREEMENT document, wich is a (government) antifranchise document.

  25. Kelli, Thank You and you are welcome!

  26. C.J Thanks for Land Patent information... I reviewed you links and did some further research. I have read commentary that filing such a patent should take you off the public tax roll records (blacked out), so no tax bills. However, I have read another commentary that several in several states, that cases which went to court found in favor of the county governments that taxpayer would pay property taxes. I realize your property is not subject to forfeiture, but it appears these cases were never challenged to the United States Supreme Court only to the state level courts. any thoughts ???

    It appears law schools and lawyers in continued education never are taught the significance of parties owning property under an allodial land patent or they on purpose do not offer this advice to clients...... similar to Revocable Trusts vs Probate via Testate or Intestate planning, which in my opinion is MALPRACTICE....

    BTW, I am posting after finding this Blog # 1335 in Paul's Search Box Engine.... for some reason this Blog on Citizenship was deleted from my mail..... NOT BY ME.... ???

    I believe the answer to you last Question... NO WHERE !!!

  27. C.J. YOU ARE SINGING TO THE CHOIR :))). Yes, Marbury v Madison and Miranda v Arizona are Staple cases regarding Constitutional Issues on Rights. I am bad for using the word "Taxpayer"... not my intention. However, here are 3 court cases discussing land patents.

    In reading these cases, it is not clear whether the "party" executed a proper chain of title land patent. However, it is clear in all cases, the court states, that "federal courts have squarely rejected the argument, ruling that government grants of property by federal land patent in centuries past do not prevent the creation of later interests and have nothing to do with claims subsequent (property taxes and mortgages) subsequently arising under state law." DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=99724

    I am not arguing the point about constitutional RIGHTS..... BUT, in all 3 cases, it appears the "parties" filed the "land patents" then quit paying property taxes OR quit paying a mortgage or attempted to remove the bank's interest in the property. Bottom line, the sheriff shows up, there is a sale of the property and they are out in the cold...


    Anyway, I am busy drafting and filing affidavits, Form 56 etc, so I am marching ahead for myself and my sister. So, you don't have to talk me into walking the talk....

    But what is your thoughts about these cases...??? Courts are corrupt and I have seen first hand courts making rulings by misinterpreting or emphasizing some evidence over other evidence to advance their own interest, especially if one of the parties is the GOVERNMENT. Even though the Supreme Court is the "Court of Last Resort" 90% of all litigants never make it to the High Court.....

    I appreciate your input as someone who makes a major INFORMED CONTRIBUTION to the blog..... In my past life, I gave seminars to professional groups on legal planning to avoid the court system..... the state Bar was not too happy.... I am no fan of Lawyers and or Attorney's at Law...

    1. Richard, The 3 court cases you shared probably had a social security numbers attached to the property mortgages, deeds and or titles Like C.J said.

      Here are 2 good sources on land patents: (this costs $33 but is worth it. And (this is free)

  28. I get where Abby is coming from that we should not have to do paperwork to change our political status. Abby is right, We should not have to do our paperwork, but we do! The issue is most people including government employees, this includes most law enforcement officers do not know u.s citizenship is based on fraud and adhesion contracts signed under penalty of perjury. These adhesion contracts makes you liable whether you like it or not. You need to do your paperwork to nullify the adhesion contracts and to prevent government employees (this includes the majority of law enforcement) assumptions and presumptions about your political status. Nobody can change your political status for you and nobody is going to come to save you. You can only save yourself. Doing nothing will not do a damn thing!

    To all those who do not know what to do when or if they get hauled in court...

    The trick is to avoid going into court if there is no crime and there are no victim(s)! Read and use the common law abatement proccess here:

    1. I would like to add to my above post that in the abatement documemts, the author uses the terms citizen(s) and person and one time the author uses the term sovereign citizen. I avoid using the term citizen(s) and person, instead of using the term citizens, I use the term the people of Florida.

      The courthouse, the judge and the prosecution attorney are not the court. The paperwork is the court. This is another reason why doing your paperwork is important! In addition to sending the judge, court clerk, and the prosecution attorney the abatement documents, I also send them for good measure a copy of the following documents that I have sent the government: irs form 56, and sedm' Resignation of compelled social security trustee.

  29. Thanks to 1Free Man, who posted it here numerous times, I just received my State National/non-Citizen passport and State National/non-Citizen ID card. I followed his advice and went through Would recomend to anyone interested!


Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.