"Sedition by Syntax"
by
Ralph Schwan
The Upright Ostrich
December/January, 1985-1986
edited by
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness
and Private Attorney General
Are you a citizen of the United States? Be careful! I'll
tell you something that the United States Government will never
want to tell you: That's a "trick" question. The federal
(feudal?) government will ask you that trick question quite
often.
It would be better to put the question like this: Are you a
citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of one of the United
States of America? Do you think the two are one and the same
thing? Your education via government schools serves you poorly.
Recall some fourth grade grammar, then check the Constitution for
the United States of America, particularly the Preamble in that
important document. Hereafter, we will refer to this
Constitution as the "U.S. Constitution".
Let's use a simple example: Consider "the house of Mr.
Jones." We'll rewrite it to read, "Mr. Jones' house." See the
apostrophe? It tells you something about the relationship
between Mr. Jones and his house. In most words, you would add
both an apostrophe and an "s"; but when a word ends in an "s",
you do not need to add another. Ah, yes, you do remember that
rule! Then, a citizen of the United States could be rewritten as
"United States' citizen", but never as "United States citizen".
Right? Right!
You now graduate to the fifth grade.
Now, for more grammar. Examine the term "United States".
Is it a singular noun (one thing), or is it plural (more than one
thing)? By the U.S. Constitution, it is singular and plural! We
know that, because the terms "their" and "them" are used as
pronouns referring to the "United States", e.g. treason against
the "United States" is "levying War against them" or "adhering to
their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". You probably
memorized the names of the "United States" in fifth grade. Was
it boring for you?
But, the term "United States" is also used in the singular
sense. It is one Nation. A Nation is a natural thing. This one
exists because of the boundaries of the States. IT is never
defined in other terms. The term "United States" is a
geographical name -- one thing, one Nation. The United States
are one Union. The United States is one Nation. Are you
confused? You isn't? I are!
Because "United States" is a noun ending in "s", it can be
either singular or plural. "Jones' house" could mean the house
of one person (Mr. Jones), or many persons (Mr. and Mrs. Jones
and their 12 children). But, in either case, as we learned in
fourth grade, the apostrophe must follow the "s".
Were you born in the United States? The preposition "in"
shows that "United States", in that question, is a place -- a
geographical place named "United States". It is a singular noun.
You can only be born in one place; so, the term "United States"
is one place. When the term "United States" is singular, it
refers to a natural place, a nation, a land.
When "United States" is a plural noun, it refers to the
"Union" of the several States. Unions are things that are "Un-
natural"; they are things, not places. Unions, as We the People
said, need to be perfected; nations cannot be perfected.
Unions, all unions, exist by agreement; Nations exist naturally.
The only requisite for citizenship is your "place" of birth.
Every Person is a natural Citizen of some Nation. Nature is so
important to citizenship, that Persons wishing to change
citizenship must be NATURAL-ized. For those who appreciate 2000-
year-old terms, "naturalized" means "born again". But, that's
not important. Just remember that original citizenship exists
because of places, not agreements. If you want to get fancy,
look up the definition of "Jus soli" in a legal dictionary, like
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (with pronunciations).
If you were born in the United States (the "Nation", in the
singular sense), you are automatically a Citizen of the United
States, i.e. the United States, one place, one Nation. Would you
also like to join the "Union", the United States (in the plural
sense), "them"? Sorry, only States can join this Union. People
cannot join this Union, although they can serve in Congress.
Carefully read the qualifications for serving in the U.S. Senate
and House of Representatives; both qualifications share one
important thing: every qualified candidate must be a Citizen of
(one of) the United States.
At least that's how it was intended to be.
In 1867, "United States" was either the name of a
geographical place, or the name of a Union of states. In 1868, a
new meaning was created. A third meaning. The Fourteenth
amendment accomplished this feat. It begins like this: "All
persons born ... in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...."
The problem here is that the Fourteenth amendment uses the
term "United States", first in the singular, geographic, national
sense (in the United States), and then in the plural, Union
agreement sense (jurisdiction thereof) -- but it did not make the
word "jurisdiction" plural. It should have read "jurisdictions
thereof". But, that would have been quite illogical, for places
do not possess jurisdiction. The Union had jurisdiction over the
several States, but not over People, and We the People had
jurisdiction over the Union -- or so We said. Under the
definitions of the term "United States" circa 1867, the
Fourteenth amendment made no sense.
Rather than to admit the foolishness of this amendment
(which was never lawfully ratified), a new meaning was given to
the term "United States". It became a TITLE. This meaning was
never imagined by the Framers of the original U.S. Constitution.
They took great care in it to grant no titles to the federal
government. The U.S. Constitution merely describes the
government of the United States; it used no Titles. The best
example of this fact is that the "supreme" Court is spelled with
a lower-case "s". The U.S. Constitution "entitled" nothing. "We
the People" is the only real title used anywhere in that
document! In fact, titles of nobility are expressly prohibited
in the organic U.S. Constitution. We the People had had our fill
of kings, and nobles of kings. You and I were intended to be the
only Nobility of this Nation. Our title was our birthright; it
was not granted by the federal (feudal) government. It was not a
privilege -- it was a Right, a fundamental Right, no less.
But, the Fourteenth amendment, while it attempted to
establish a title, did not eliminate or change the prior meanings
of the terms "United States", or "Citizen", as those terms were
used in the organic U.S. Constitution. Hence, since 1868, the
term "United States" has had three different meanings: (1) the
geographical name of a Nation, (2) the name of a Union of
States, and (3) a title of nobility referring to a government
operating outside of the several States of the Union. The first
meaning is singular and natural; the second meaning is plural
and created by agreement; the third meaning is singular and
granted.
But, wait! The federal government may grant no titles of
nobility. True. Very true. The government of the United States
may not, but you can!
As a nobleman, you can grant a title, only you. Plus, you
can abdicate your title; you can trade it for a new one. But,
you can only trade downwards, because the title you were born
with is the highest title. You can trade your high title for a
low one; that's a Right which you possess. It's easy to do --
too easy, actually. They have also made it as easy as possible,
because government agents want you to join their vast herd of
subjects.
All you need to do is to claim that your new title is
"citizen of the United States". Do that, and you will instantly
inform the rest of the world that you are a person (lower-case
"p") who is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"
[sic]. You will use "United States" as a title conferred upon
"citizen" (lower-case "c"), and you will thereby prove that you
believe the "United States" is something (someone) other than a
geographical description, or the name of a Union of States. By
claiming that it has a jurisdiction greater than your own, you
grant it a TITLE. The "person" who holds the highest title of a
Nation, and who subjects people to his jurisdiction, is called a
KING.
Have you ever claimed the title of "citizen of the United
States"? Did you ever get a Social Security number and card?
You did it. How about a passport? Same thing. Passports and
social security are entitlements (read "en-TITLE-ment"). They
are granted by the high noble, to the lesser nobles.
Entitlements are granted by the "United States" (in the singular
sense). This government is a government of title. It exists
side-by-side with the constitutionally described "government of
the United States of America", under the Constitution for the
United States of America (see Preamble).
Do you want proof? Take a look at anything possessed by
this government. On that object, you will find a label, or a
placard, or a sign. It reads: "property of the United States
Government." It owns more property than any feudal king ever
dreamed of possessing, but then, it also has more subjects than
any feudal king ever had, by far!
As a person of low title under the United States (feudal)
government, you are bound to obey not only law, but a "Code" as
well. Remember how feudal knights had to obey a code -- a code
of chivalry? Well, the "Code" which a citizen of the United
States is bound to obey is called ("entitled") the "United States
Code" (no apostrophe). Originally, this Code was called the
"Code of Law of the United States", but it was quickly filled
with so much non-law that the name was changed, so that persons
(not "Persons") claiming low title would know that it was for
them to obey. You did not realize this? Maybe you don't deserve
your birthright title!
At the same time, another problem arose. The courts
described in the Constitution had jurisdiction (read "judicial
power") in all matters arising under the Constitution, the laws,
and the treaties of the United States, which were made under
THEIR authority, plural, the "Union". If violators of the Code
were to be punished by the courts, or if the courts were to hear
any matter under their special "Code", then a new court system
had to be established -- a court system for persons of low title
(small "p"). These courts would be courts of title.
What are the names of these courts? Answer: "United States
District Court" and "United States Court of Appeals". The courts
described by the U.S. Constitution would be "district Courts of
the United States", "appeals Court of the United States", and
"supreme Court of the United States". It would appear that,
since both titled courts and constitutional courts must now
exist, side-by-side, then the judges must sit in either; they
really hold two jobs.
You determine which court by addressing your petition to one
or the other. You pick. The titled courts are no place for a
Freeman, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America. These
courts have a zillion rules (published for the "Code"), right
down to the kind of paper and the style of type you must use in
your pleadings. The courts of the United States are quite the
opposite, having no published rules. These courts are courts of
Law, convened for Justice. Trivial things like paper and type
style have no bearing on either. Here, substance always prevails
over form. For proof, examine 28 U.S.C. 2072(a), where
constitutional courts are not even mentioned in the authority
which Congress granted the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of
practice and procedure, and rules of evidence, but only for
titled courts -- United State district courts.
If you are a citizen of the United States, you will have to
appear before a court of title, at least in civil matters under
the Code. Jurisdiction in criminal matters is properly still
left to "district Courts of the United States". Lucky criminals!
Counterfeiters and pirates fare far better than persons of low
title! Well, they should, for their Court follows Law and
Justice, while a United States District Court follows only
"Code".
Titled courts, like the United States District Court, are
harsh in their administration of the Code, for they are bound to
nothing else (assuming the presiding judge is not also a
criminal). These courts will gladly take the word of a United
States ATTORNey over the word of a petty citizen of the United
States. To "attorn" is to supervise the transfer an estate from
the old lord to the new lord; it is a term from feudal law.
When they attorn properly, they are rewarded handsomely.
In courts of title, rank has its privileges. These courts
owe no allegiance to the U.S. Constitution; they need not rule
by the Laws of the United States of America (the "Union"). They
follow only a Code. They obey their master, the United States
(feudal) government. These courts, as did the infamous Crown
Courts of England, exist only for the benefit of the peerage and,
unfortunately, often to the detriment of the Freemen of the land.
This "dual court" system is probably the only reason for
what, at first glance, appears to be a set of contradictory "case
laws". While a reasonable mind can understand the potential for
divergent court holdings from one State to another, the
contradictions manifest in "federal" court holdings are quite
troubling, indeed.
Ever wonder how the "Supreme" Court can overturn itself?
Most often, it does not. But, one can quickly see that the
decisions of courts of title, or "United States Courts", would
oft times conflict with the rules made by constitutional "courts
of the United States". One hears only matters brought by titled
citizens, the other hears matters brought by Freemen. Since the
decisions are published in the same volumes, with no distinction
between the courts, case law seems to contradict itself.
Should you find this "dual court" concept a bit far fetched,
examine the Internal Revenue Code, sections 7402(b) and 7604(a).
You will find that these sections grant the authority to two
different courts to enforce a summons. The sections are
identical, word-for-word in every respect, except for one: one
section gives authority to the "United States district courts"
and the other section gives authority to the "district courts of
the United States". For a recent discussion of this all
important distinction, read "Karma and the Federal Courts" in the
Supreme Law Library on the Internet, and the supporting citations
in "A Collection of Court Authorities in re the District Court of
the United States" also in the Supreme Law Library.
Why both? Income taxes are excise taxes. They are an
excise/occupation tax on a privilege. The privilege is your
title -- citizen of the United States. A "first party" summons
is served upon a titled person. But, a "third party" summons
might be served upon anyone, titled or not. Thus, one court must
enforce the one; the other court must enforce the other.
Since a titled person (lower-case "p") is required by the
Code to keep books, records and papers, the court of title can
demand the delivery of those documents, without particularly
describing them, without describing the place to be searched,
without the presentment of an accusation by a party under oath or
affirmation. Should a titled person fail to deliver up such
documents, he will find himself in jail for contempt -- not
contempt of court, but contempt of the Code! A court of title
may jail him for failing to produce records which no one has even
claimed existed in the first place! He will be released from
jail only when he "creates" the documents which a titled person
is required to possess.
Nowhere is the dual court / dual government system more
apparent than in tax matters. At common law, titled individuals
(but not the king) are bound by an oath of allegiance, in order
to be entitled. Thus, income tax forms must be signed only by
persons under oath, persons who are subject to the "penalties of
perjury". Signing such a form is a confession that you hold
title. The form is to be signed by a "citizen of the United
States" or a "resident of the United States" (singular sense
here). Hence, a signed tax form is always introduced as
evidence, in a "criminal" tax prosecution, to show that the
defendant has claimed a title. Signed tax forms need not be
notarized, because they conform to affirmations made "inside the
United States". For proof, see 28 U.S.C. 1746(2), and then
compare its companion at subsection 1746(1).
Perhaps you have heard that tax deductions are granted by
the "grace" of the United States (feudal) government. It's true.
Grace is a favor, a privilege. Kings dispense grace; kings deny
grace. What is given in grace, may be denied. The IRS will
often deny tax deductions. Search as we may, it is impossible to
discover where it is in the U.S. Constitution that the federal
government is authorized to dispense or deny any "grace".
But, the government of the United States of America does not
dispense or deny grace; the United States Government does. It
dispenses and denies grace to its subjects -- the citizens of the
United States. This king wears no crown, for it has no head. It
cannot be killed. It cannot be harmed. It cannot even be sued,
unless it first "grants" its own permission to be sued. It is
hardly the same government which We demanded would always allow
Us to petition for redress of grievances, an unalienable Right
guaranteed by the Petition Clause of the First Amendment!
This government-king has existed for over 100 years. At
first, it was quite innocuous, for it had very few subjects.
But, when it tricked Us, the People, into signing away our
birthrights via reams of forms, its power became immense. Today,
this government by title is so powerful that the original,
constitutional government of the United States of America became
lost in its shadow.
There are still two governments. One asks that you should
serve it; the other only seeks to serve you. The government of
title will entice you with promises of grants and enTITLEments:
welfare, social security, low-interest loans, grants of
exemption, grants of deduction. But, it can give you nothing.
It exists only by your authority. It cannot give you anything
that you did not already possess. Try as it might to deceive
you, it exists by your grace -- not the other way around!
Do Us both a favor: withdraw your grace; deny your grace.
Be a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America again. Stop
trying to serve two masters; you can't do it. The Holy Bible
says so, and it is the Word of the Most High. Stop pretending
that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
and announce that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the Most
High, and only the Most High. You won't be, unless you choose to
be. Even the greatest earthly king is only a king by the consent
of his subjects. Make yourself subject only to the King of
kings. Stop being a subject of anyone else, or anything else.
Be a free man!
Refuse to claim that you are a "citizen of the United
States". This term is identical to, and should be replaced by,
the term "federal citizen", because the latter term is entirely
unique and cannot be confused with any other legal term. Confer
at "Federal citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
(with pronunciations). As a Citizen of ONE OF the United States
of America, you may deny jurisdiction to titled courts. Be aware
that this latter term, also known as "State Citizen", is not
defined in Black's Law Dictionary, however. And, by all means,
stop calling this king by its title, the United States
Government.
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Ralph Schwan