Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state
zip code exempt

Under Protest and by Special Visitation
with explicit reservation of all rights



IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA      )       Case No. GJ-95-1-6
SERVED ON                      )
                               )  IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO
                               )  GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY
                               )  AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE:
_______________________________)  28 U.S.C. 1746(1)

COMES NOW  Paul Andrew,  Mitchell, Sui  Juris, Sovereign Arizona

Citizen (hereinafter  "Counsel") and  Vice President  for  Legal

Affairs of  New Life  Health Center  Company, an  Unincorporated

Business Trust  domiciled in  the Arizona  Republic (hereinafter

the "Company"),  to record  His Verified Statement in Support of

Challenge  to  Grand  Jury  Selection  Policy  and  its  Federal

Statute.  "We are no longer subjects of a government."  See "The

Meaning  of   American  Citizenship"   by  the  Commissioner  of

Immigration and Naturalization infra and EXHIBIT "A" attached.


     The undersigned  hereby verifies, under penalty of perjury,

under the  laws of  the United  States of  America, without  the

"United States,"  that  the  following  Statement  is  true  and

correct, to  the best of His current information, knowledge, and

belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1):

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                          Page 1 of 35

                          Chapter 11:

     The issue of sovereignty as it relates to jurisdiction is a
major key  to understanding  our system  of government under the
Constitution.     In  the   most  common   sense  of  the  word,
"sovereignty" is  autonomy, freedom  from external control.  The
sovereignty of  any government  usually extends  up to,  but not
beyond, the  borders of  its jurisdiction.    This  jurisdiction
defines a  specific territorial  boundary  which  separates  the
"external" from the "internal", the "within" from the "without".
It may  also define  a specific  function, or  set of functions,
which a  government may  lawfully perform  within  a  particular
territorial boundary.   Black's  Law Dictionary,  Sixth Edition,
defines sovereignty to mean:

     ... [T]he  international independence  of a state, combined
     with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs
     without foreign dictation.

On a  similar theme,  Black's defines  "sovereign states"  to be
those which are not under the control of any foreign power:

     No  foreign  power  or  law  can  have  control  except  by
     convention.   This power  of independent action in external
     and internal relations constitutes complete sovereignty.

     It is  a well  established principle  of law  that  the  50
States are  "foreign" with  respect to  each other,  just as the
federal zone  is "foreign"  with respect  to each of them (In re
Merriam's Estate,  36 NE  505 (1894)).    The  status  of  being
foreign is  the same  as "belonging  to" or  being "attached to"
another  state  or  another  jurisdiction.    The  proper  legal
distinction between  the terms  "foreign" and "domestic" is best
seen  in   Black's   definitions   of   foreign   and   domestic
corporations, as follows:

     Foreign corporation.   A  corporation doing business in one
     state though  chartered or incorporated in another state is
     a foreign  corporation as to the first state, and, as such,
     is  required   to  consent   to  certain   conditions   and
     restrictions in order to do business in such first state.

     Domestic corporation.   When a corporation is organized and
     chartered  in  a  particular  state,  it  is  considered  a
     domestic corporation of that state.

     The federal  zone is  an area over which Congress exercises
exclusive legislative  jurisdiction.   It is the area over which
the federal  government exercises  its sovereignty.  Despite its
obvious importance, the subject of federal jurisdiction had been
almost entirely  ignored outside the courts until the year 1954.
In that  year, a  detailed study  of  federal  jurisdiction  was
undertaken.   The occasion  for the  study arose  from a  school
playground, of  all places.   The  children of federal employees
residing on  the grounds  of a Veterans' Administration hospital
were not  allowed to attend public schools in the town where the
hospital was  located.   An administrative  decision against the
children was  affirmed by  local courts, and finally affirmed by
the State supreme court.  The residents of the area on which the
hospital was  located were  not "residents"  of the State, since
"exclusive legislative  jurisdiction" over  this area  had  been
ceded by the State to the federal government.

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                          Page 2 of 35

     A committee  was  assembled  by  Attorney  General  Herbert
Brownell,  Jr.     Their   detailed  study  was  reported  in  a
publication entitled  Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the
States, April  1956 (Volume  I) and  June 1957 (Volume II).  The
committee's report  demonstrates, beyond  any  doubt,  that  the
sovereign States  and their laws are outside the legislative and
territorial  jurisdiction   of  the   United  States**   federal
government.   They are  totally outside  the federal  zone.    A
plethora of evidence is found in the myriad of cited court cases
(700+) which  prove that  the United  States**  cannot  exercise
exclusive legislative jurisdiction outside territories or places
purchased from,  or ceded  by,  the  50  States  of  the  Union.
Attorney General Brownell described the committee's report as an
"exhaustive  and  analytical  exposition  of  the  law  in  this
hitherto little  explored field".   In his letter of transmittal
to President  Dwight D.  Eisenhower, Brownell summarized the two
volumes as follows:

     Together, the  two parts of this Committee's report and the
     full implementation  of its  recommendations will provide a
     basis for  reversing  in  many  areas  the  swing  of  "the
     pendulum of  power *  * *  from our  states to  the central
     government" to  which you  referred in  your address to the
     Conference of State Governors on June 25, 1957.

             [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                 [Letter of Transmittal, page V, emphasis added]

     Once a  State is  admitted into  the Union,  its  sovereign
jurisdiction is  firmly established over a predefined territory.
The federal  government  is  thereby  prevented  from  acquiring
legislative jurisdiction,  by means  of unilateral  action, over
any area  within the  exterior  boundaries  of  this  predefined
territory.   State assent  is necessary to transfer jurisdiction
to Congress:

     The Federal  Government cannot, by unilateral action on its
     part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within
     the exterior  boundaries of a State.  Article 1, Section 8,
     Clause 17,  of the  Constitution, provides that legislative
     jurisdiction may  be transferred pursuant to its terms only
     with the  consent of  the legislature of the State in which
     is located the area subject to the jurisdictional transfer.

             [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                            [Volume II, page 46, emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                          Page 3 of 35

     Under Article  1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution,
States of  the Union  have enacted  statutes consenting  to  the
federal acquisition  of any land, or of specific tracts of land,
within those  States.  Secondly, the federal government has also
made  "reservations"  of  jurisdiction  over  certain  areas  in
connection with  the admission  of a  State into  the Union.   A
third means  for transfer  of legislative  jurisdiction has also
come into  considerable use  over time,  namely,  a  general  or
special statute  whereby a  State makes  a cession  of  specific
functional   jurisdiction    to    the    federal    government.
Nevertheless, the  Committee  report  explained  that  "...  the
characteristics of  a legislative  jurisdiction status  are  the
same  no  matter  by  which  of  the  three  means  the  Federal
Government acquired such status"  [Volume II, page 3].  There is
simply no  federal legislative jurisdiction without consent by a
State, cession  by  a  State,  or  reservation  by  the  federal

     It scarcely  needs to  be said that unless there has been a
     transfer of  jurisdiction (1)  pursuant to  clause 17  by a
     Federal acquisition  of land  with State consent, or (2) by
     cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless
     the Federal  Government has  reserved jurisdiction upon the
     admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no
     legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such
     jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the State ....

             [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                            [Volume II, page 45, emphasis added]

     The areas  which the  50 States  have properly ceded to the
federal government are called federal "enclaves":

     By this  means some  thousands of areas have become Federal
     islands, sometimes  called  "enclaves,"  in  many  respects
     foreign to  the States  in which  they are  situated.    In
     general, not State but Federal law is applicable in an area
     under the  exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United
     States**,  for   enforcement  not   by  State  but  Federal
     authorities, and  in many  instances not  in State  but  in
     Federal courts.

             [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                             [Volume II, page 4, emphasis added]

These federal  enclaves are  considered foreign  with respect to
the States  which surround  them, just  as  the  50  States  are
considered foreign with respect to each other and to the federal
zone:    "...[T]he  several  states  of  the  Union  are  to  be
considered as  in this  respect  foreign  to  each  other  ...."
Hanley v.  Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1 (1885).  Once a State surrenders
its sovereignty  over a  specific area  of land, it is powerless
over that land; it is without authority; it cannot recapture any
of its  transferred jurisdiction  by unilateral  action, just as
the federal  government cannot  acquire jurisdiction  over State
area by  its unilateral  action.   The State has transferred its
sovereign authority to a foreign power:

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                          Page 4 of 35

     Once a  State has,  by one  means or  another,  transferred
     jurisdiction to  the United  States**, it  is,  of  course,
     powerless to  control many  of the  consequences;   without
     jurisdiction, it is without the authority to deal with many
     of the problems, and having transferred jurisdiction to the
     United States**,  it cannot unilaterally capture any of the
     transferred jurisdiction.

             [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                             [Volume II, page 7, emphasis added]

     Once sovereignty  has been  relinquished, a State no longer
has the  authority to  enforce criminal  laws in areas under the
exclusive jurisdiction  of the United States**.  Privately owned
property in  such areas  is beyond  the taxing  authority of the
State.   Residents of  such areas  are not  "residents"  of  the
State, and hence are not subject to the obligations of residents
of the  State, and  are not  entitled to any of the benefits and
privileges conferred by the State upon its residents.  Residents
of federal enclaves usually cannot vote, serve on juries, or run
for office.   They  do not,  as matter  of right, have access to
State  schools,   hospitals,  mental  institutions,  or  similar

     The acquisition  of exclusive  jurisdiction by  the Federal
Government renders  unavailable to the residents of the affected
areas the  benefits of  the laws and judicial and administrative
processes of  the State  relating to  adoption, the  probate  of
wills and  administration of  estates, divorce,  and many  other
matters.  Police, fire-fighting, notaries, coroners, and similar
services performed  by, or  under, the  authority of a State may
result in  legal sanction  within a  federal enclave.  The "old"
State laws  which apply are only those which are consistent with
the laws  of the  "new" sovereign authority, using the following
principle from international law:

     The vacuum  which would  exist because  of the  absence  of
     State law  or Federal  legislation with  respect  to  civil
     matters  in   areas  under  Federal  exclusive  legislative
     jurisdiction has  been  partially  filled  by  the  courts,
     through extension to these areas of a rule of international
     law that[,]  when one  sovereign takes  over  territory  of
     another[,] the  laws of the original sovereign in effect at
     the time  of the  taking[,] which are not inconsistent with
     the laws  or policies  of the second[,] continue in effect,
     as laws  of the succeeding sovereign, until changed by that

             [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                   [Volume II, page 6, commas added for clarity]
                                                [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                          Page 5 of 35

     It is  clear, then,  that only one "state" can be sovereign
at any  given moment in time, whether that "state" be one of the
50 Union  States,  or  the  federal  government  of  the  United
States**.  Before ceding a tract of land to Congress, a State of
the Union exercises its sovereign authority over any land within
its borders:

     Save only  as they  are subject  to the prohibitions of the
     Constitution, or  as their action in some measure conflicts
     with the  powers delegated  to the  national government  or
     with congressional  legislation enacted  in the exercise of
     those powers,  the governments  of the states are sovereign
     within  their   territorial  limits   and  have   exclusive
     jurisdiction over persons and property located therein.

                       [72 American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 4]
                                                [emphasis added]

After a  State has  ceded a  tract  of  land  to  Congress,  the
situation is  completely different.  The United States**, as the
"succeeding sovereign",  then exercises  its sovereign authority
over that land.  In this sense, sovereignty is indivisible, even
though the  Committee's report documented numerous situations in
which jurisdiction  was  actually  shared  between  the  federal
government and  one of  the 50  States.  Even in this situation,
however, sovereignty  rests either  in  the  State,  or  in  the
federal  government,   but  never  both.    Sovereignty  is  the
authority to  which there  is politically  no superior.  Outside
the federal  zone, the States of the Union remain sovereign, and
their laws  are completely  outside  the  exclusive  legislative
jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States**.

     This understanding  of the separate sovereignties possessed
by each  of the State and federal governments was not only valid
during the  Eisenhower administration;  it has  been endorsed by
the U.S.  Supreme Court  as recently as 1985.  In that year, the
high Court  examined the  "dual sovereignty  doctrine"  when  it
ruled that  successive prosecutions  by two  States for the same
conduct were  not barred  by the  Double Jeopardy  Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.   The "crucial determination" turned on whether
State and  federal powers  derive from  separate and independent
sources.   The Supreme Court explained that the doctrine of dual
sovereignty has been uniformly upheld by the courts:

     It has  been uniformly  held that  the States  are separate
     sovereigns with  respect to  the Federal Government because
     each State's  power to  prosecute derives from its inherent
     sovereignty, preserved  to it  by the  Tenth Amendment, and
     not from  the  Federal  Government.    Given  the  distinct
     sources of  their powers to try a defendant, the States are
     no less  sovereign with respect to each other than they are
     with respect to the Federal Government.

                   [Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 89-90 (1985)]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                          Page 6 of 35

     Now, if a State of the Union is sovereign, is it correct to
say that  the State  exercises an  authority to  which there  is
absolutely no  superior?   No, this  is not a correct statement.
There is  no other  organized body  which  is  superior  to  the
organized body  which retains  sovereignty. The  sovereignty  of
governments is  an authority  to which  there  is  no  organized
superior, but  there is  absolutely a  superior body,  and  that
superior body is the People of the United States*** of America:

     The words  "people of the United States" and "citizens" are
     synonymous terms,  and mean  the same  thing.    They  both
     describe  the   political  body   who,  according   to  our
     republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold
     the  power   and  conduct   the  government  through  their
     representatives.   They are  what we  familiarly  call  the
     "sovereign people,"  and  every  citizen  is  one  of  this
     people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.

                    [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)]
                                                [emphasis added]

The source  of all sovereignty in a constitutional Republic like
the 50  States, united  by and  under the  Constitution for  the
United States  of America,  is the People themselves.  Remember,
the States,  and the  federal  government  acting  inside  those
States, are  both bound  by the terms of a contract known as the
U.S. Constitution.  That Constitution is a contract of delegated
powers which  ultimately originate  in the  sovereignty  of  the
Creator, who  endowed creation,  individual People  like you and
me, with  sovereignty in  that  Creator's  image  and  likeness.
Nothing stands  between us  and the Creator.  I think it is fair
to say  that the  Supreme Court  of the  United States was never
more eloquent  when it  described the  source of  sovereignty as

     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 except to
     the ultimate  tribunal of  the public  judgement, 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, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
                                                [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                          Page 7 of 35

     More recently, the Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental
importance of  US the  People as  the source of sovereignty, and
the subordinate  status which  Congress occupies  in relation to
the sovereignty  of the People.  The following language is terse
and right on point:

     In the  United States***, sovereignty resides in the people
     who act through the organs established by the Constitution.
     [cites omitted]   The  Congress as  the instrumentality  of
     sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on
     behalf of  the people in the manner and with the effect the
     Constitution ordains.    The  Congress  cannot  invoke  the
     sovereign power  of the  people to  override their  will as
     thus declared.

              [Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)]
                                                [emphasis added]

     No discussion  of sovereignty would be complete, therefore,
without considering  the sovereignty  that resides  in  US,  the
People.   The Supreme  Court has  often identified the People as
the source  of sovereignty in our republican form of government.
Indeed, the  federal Constitution  guarantees to  every State in
the Union a "Republican Form" of government, in so many words:

     Section 4.   The  United States  shall guarantee  to  every
     State in  this Union  a Republican  Form of Government, and
     shall protect each of them against Invasion; ....

              [United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]
                                                [emphasis added]

What exactly is a "Republican Form" of government?  It is one in
which the  powers of  sovereignty are  vested in  the People and
exercised by the People.  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
makes  this   very  clear   in  its   various   definitions   of

     Republican government.   One  in   which  the   powers   of
     sovereignty are  vested in  the people and are exercised by
     the people,  either directly,  or  through  representatives
     chosen by  the people,  to whom  those powers are specially
     delegated.   In re  Duncan, 139  U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35
     L.Ed. 219;  Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22
     L.Ed. 627.

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                          Page 8 of 35

The  Supreme   Court  has   clearly  distinguished  between  the
operation of  governments in  Europe, and  government  in  these
United States*** of America, as follows:

     In Europe,  the executive  is almost  synonymous  with  the
     sovereign  power  of  a  State;    and  generally  includes
     legislative  and   judicial  authority.  ...  Such  is  the
     condition of  power in  that quarter of the world, where it
     is too  commonly acquired  by force  or fraud, or both, and
     seldom by compact.  In America, however, the case is widely
     different.     Our  government  is  founded  upon  compact.
     Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.

                    [Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
                                                [emphasis added]

     The  federal   Constitution  makes  a  careful  distinction
between  natural  born  Citizens  and  citizens  of  the  United
States** (compare  2:1:5 with  Section 1  of the  so-called 14th
Amendment).  One is an unconditional Sovereign by natural birth,
who is  endowed by  the Creator with certain unalienable rights;
the other  has been  granted the  revocable privileges of U.S.**
citizenship, endowed  by the  Congress of  the United  States**.
One is  a Citizen,  the other is a subject.  One is a Sovereign,
the  other   is  a  subordinate.    One  is  a  Citizen  of  our
constitutional  Republic;     the   other  is  a  citizen  of  a
legislative  democracy   (the  federal   zone).     Notice   the
superior/subordinate relationship between these two statuses.  I
am forever indebted to M. J. "Red" Beckman, co-author of The Law
That Never  Was with  Bill Benson,  for clearly illustrating the
important difference between the two.  Red Beckman has delivered
many eloquent  lectures based  on the profound simplicity of the
following table:

          Chain of command and authority in a:

          Majority Rule            Constitutional
          Democracy                Republic

          X                        Creator
          Majority                 Individual
          Government               Constitution
          Public Servants          Government
          Case & Statute Law       Public Servants
          Corporations             Statute Law
          individual               Corporations

     In this  illustration, a  democracy ruled  by the  majority
places the  individual at  the bottom, and an unknown elite, Mr.
"X" at  the top.   The  majority (or mob) elects a government to
hire public  "servants" who write laws primarily for the benefit
of  corporations.    These  corporations  are  either  owned  or
controlled by  Mr. X,  a clique of the ultra-wealthy who seek to
restore a  two-class "feudal" society.  They exercise their vast
economic power  so as  to turn  all of  America into  a  "feudal
zone".   The rights of individuals occupy the lowest priority in
this chain  of command.   Those  rights often  vanish over time,
because democracies  eventually self-destruct.   The enforcement
of  laws  within  this  scheme  is  the  job  of  administrative
tribunals, who  specialize in  holding individuals to the letter
of all  rules and  regulations of the corporate state, no matter
how arbitrary  and with  little if  any regard  for  fundamental
human rights:

     A democracy  that recognizes  only  manmade  laws  perforce
     obliterates the concept of Liberty as a divine right.

          [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 146]
                                                [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                          Page 9 of 35

     In the  constitutional Republic,  however,  the  rights  of
individuals are supreme.  Individuals delegate their sovereignty
to a  written contract,  called a  constitution, which  empowers
government to  hire public  servants to write laws primarily for
the benefit  of individuals.  The corporations occupy the lowest
priority  in   this  chain   of  command,  since  their  primary
objectives are  to maximize  the enjoyment of individual rights,
and   to    facilitate    the    fulfillment    of    individual
responsibilities.  The enforcement of laws within this scheme is
the responsibility  of sovereign individuals, who exercise their
power in  three arenas:   the  voting booth, the trial jury, and
the grand  jury.   Without  a  jury  verdict  of  "guilty",  for
example, no  law can  be enforced  and no  penalty exacted.  The
behavior of public servants is tightly restrained by contractual
terms, as  found in the written Constitution.  Statutes and case
law are  created primarily  to limit  and define  the scope  and
extent of public servant power.    

     Sovereign individuals  are subject  only to  a Common  Law,
whose primary  purposes are  to protect  and  defend  individual
rights, and  to  prevent  anyone,  whether  public  official  or
private person,  from violating the rights of other individuals.
Within this  scheme, Sovereigns  are never  subject to their own
creations, and  the constitutional  contract is such a creation.
To quote  the Supreme Court, "No fiction can make a natural born
subject."   Milvaine v.  Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808).  That
is to say, no fiction, be it a corporation, a statute law, or an
administrative regulation,  can mutate  a natural born Sovereign
into someone  who is  subject to  his own creations.  Author and
scholar Lori Jacques has put it succinctly as follows:

     As each  state is  sovereign and  not a  territory  of  the
     United States**,  the meaning  is clear that state citizens
     are not  subject to  the legislative  jurisdiction  of  the
     United States**.   Furthermore,  there is not the slightest
     intimation in  the Constitution  which created  the "United
     States" as  a political  entity that the "United States" is
     sovereign over its creators.

           [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 32]
                                                [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 10 of 35

     Accordingly, if  you choose  to investigate the matter, you
will find  a very  large body  of legal  literature which  cites
another fiction,  the so-called  14th Amendment,  from which the
federal government presumes to derive general authority to treat
everyone in America as subjects and not as Sovereigns:

     Section 1.   All  persons born or naturalized in the United
     States**, and  subject to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are
     citizens of  the United  States** and  of the State wherein
     they reside.

        [United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [sic]]
                                                [emphasis added]

A  careful  reading  of  this  amendment  reveals  an  important
subtlety which  is lost on many people who read it for the first
time.  The citizens it defines are second class citizens because
the "c" is lower-case, even in the case of the State citizens it
defines.  Note how the amendment defines "citizens of the United
States**" and "citizens of the State wherein they reside"! It is
just uncanny how the wording of this amendment closely parallels
the Code  of Federal Regulations (CFR) which promulgates Section
1 of  the Internal  Revenue Code  (IRC).   Can it  be that  this
amendment had  something to do with subjugation, by way of taxes
and other  means?  Yes, it most certainly did.  Section 1 of the
IRC  is   the  section   which  imposes   income  taxes.     The
corresponding section  of the  CFR defines who is a "citizen" as

     Every person born or naturalized in the United States** and
     subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

                               [26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added]

Notice the  use of  the term "its jurisdiction".  This leaves no
doubt that  the "United  States**" is  a singular entity in this
context.  In other words, it is the federal zone.  Do we dare to
speculate why  the so-called  14th Amendment was written instead
with the  phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?  Is this
another case of deliberate ambiguity?  You be the judge.

     Not only  did this  so-called "amendment"  fail to  specify
which meaning  of the term "United States" was being used;  like
the 16th  Amendment, it also failed to be ratified, this time by
15  of  the  37  States  which  existed  in  1868.    The  House
Congressional  Record  for  June  13,  1967,  contains  all  the
documentation  you   need  to  prove  that  the  so-called  14th
Amendment was  never ratified into law (see page 15641 et seq.).
For example,  it itemizes  all States  which voted  against  the
proposed  amendment,   and  the   precise   dates   when   their
Legislatures did  so.  "I cannot believe that any court, in full
possession of  its  faculties,  could  honestly  hold  that  the
amendment was properly approved and adopted." State v. Phillips,
540 P.2d.  936, 941 (1975).  The Utah Supreme Court has detailed
the  shocking   and  sordid  history  of  the  14th  Amendment's
"adoption" in  the case  of Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439
P.2d 266, 270 (1968).

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 11 of 35

     A great  deal of written material on the 14th Amendment has
been assembled  into computer  files by  Richard McDonald, whose
mailing  address   is  585-D   Box  Canyon  Road,  Canoga  Park,
California Republic  (not "CA").  He requests that ZIP codes not
be used on his incoming mail (use "ZIP code exempt (DMM 122.32)"
instead).   Richard  McDonald  has  done  a  mountain  of  legal
research and writing on the origins and effects of the so-called
14th Amendment.   He  documents how key court decisions like the
Slaughter House  Cases, among  many others, all found that there
is a  clear distinction  between a  Citizen of  a  State  and  a
citizen of  the  United  States**  .    A  State  Citizen  is  a
Sovereign, whereas a citizen of the United States** is a subject
of Congress.  The exercise of federal citizenship is a statutory
privilege which  can be  taxed with  excises.   The exercise  of
State Citizenship  is a  Common Law Right which simply cannot be
taxed because  governments cannot  tax the  exercise of a right,

     The case  of U.S.  v. Cruikshank  is famous,  not only  for
confirming this  distinction between  State Citizens  and U.S.**
citizens, but  also for establishing a key precedent in the area
of  due   process.  This   precedent  underlies  the  "void  for
vagueness" doctrine  which can  and should be applied to nullify
the IRC.   On  the issue  of citizenship,  the Cruikshank  court
ruled as follows:

     We have  in our political system a government of the United
     States** and  a government  of each  of the several States.
     Each one  of these governments is distinct from the others,
     and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and
     whose rights,  within its  jurisdiction, it  must  protect.
     The same  person may  be at  the same time a citizen of the
     United States** and a citizen of a State, but his rights of
     citizenship  under   one  of   these  governments  will  be
     different from  those he  has under  the other.  Slaughter-
     House Cases

               [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
                                                [emphasis added]

The  leading  authorities  for  this  pivotal  distinction  are,
indeed, a  series of  U.S. Supreme  Court decisions known as the
Slaughter  House   Cases,  which  examined  the  so-called  14th
Amendment in  depth.  An exemplary paragraph from these cases is
the following:

     It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the
     United States**  and a  citizenship of  a State,  which are
     distinct from  each other  and which  depend upon different
     characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

                [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 16 Wall. 36]
                           [21 L.Ed. 394 (1873), emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 12 of 35

A similar  authority is  found in  the case  of  K.  Tashiro  v.
Jordan, decided  by the Supreme Court of the State of California
almost fifty  years later.    Notice,  in  particular,  how  the
California Supreme Court again cites the Slaughter House Cases:

     That there  is a  citizenship of  the United States** and a
     citizenship of  a state,  and the privileges and immunities
     of one are not the same as the other is well established by
     the decisions  of the  courts of this country.  The leading
     cases upon  the subjects  are those  decided by the Supreme
     Court of  the United States and reported in 16 Wall. 36, 21
     L. Ed. 394, and known as the Slaughter House Cases.

                  [K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927)]
                                  [affirmed 278 U.S. 123 (1928)]
                                                [emphasis added]

     The Slaughter  House Cases are quite important to the issue
of citizenship,  but the  pivotal case  on the  subject  is  the
famous Dred  Scott decision, decided in 1856, prior to the Civil
War.   In this  case, the  U.S. Supreme  Court wrote  one of the
longest  decisions   in   the   entire   history   of   American
jurisprudence.   In  arriving  at  their  understanding  of  the
precise meaning  of Citizenship, as understood by the Framers of
the Constitution, the high Court left no stone unturned in their
search for relevant law:

     We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and
     of the  Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain
     words of  the Constitution itself:  we have the legislation
     of the  different States, before, about the time, and since
     the Constitution  was adopted;   we have the legislation of
     Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent period;
     and  we  have  the  constant  and  uniform  action  of  the
     Executive Department,  all concurring together, and leading
     to the  same result.   And  if anything  in relation to the
     construction  of   the  Constitution  can  be  regarded  as
     settled, it is that which we now give to the word "citizen"
     and the word "people."

                    [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)]
                                                [emphasis added]

     In the  fundamental law,  the notion  of a  "citizen of the
United States"  simply did  not exist before the 14th Amendment;
at best,  this notion  is  a  fiction  within  a  fiction.    In
discussing the power of the States to naturalize, the California
State Supreme  Court put  it rather  bluntly when  it ruled that
there was no such thing as a "citizen of the United States":

     A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to
     be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States, although
     technically and  abstractly there  is no  such thing.    To
     conceive a  citizen of  the United  States  who  is  not  a
     citizen of  some one  of the  States, is totally foreign to
     the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and
     common understanding  of the  expression  as  used  in  the
     Constitution, which  must be deduced from its various other
     provisions.   The  object  then  to  be  attained,  by  the
     exercise of  the  power  of  naturalization,  was  to  make
     citizens of the respective States.

                           [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
                                                [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 13 of 35

This decision has never been overturned!

     What is the proper construction and common understanding of
the term  "Citizen of the United States" as used in the original
Constitution, before  the so-called  14th Amendment?  This is an
important question, because this status is still a qualification
for the  offices of  Senator, Representative  and President.  No
Person can  be a  Representative unless he has been a Citizen of
the United  States for  seven years (1:2:2);  no Person can be a
Senator unless  he has  been a  Citizen of the United States for
nine years  (1:3:3);   no Person can be President unless he is a
natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States (2:1:5).
If these  requirements had  been literally  obeyed, there  could
have been  no elections  for Representatives  to Congress for at
least seven years after the adoption of the Constitution, and no
one would  have been  eligible as a Senator for nine years after
its adoption.  Author John S. Wise, in a rare book now available
on Richard  McDonald's electronic  bulletin board  system (BBS),
explains away the problem very simply as follows:

     The language  employed by  the convention  was less careful
     than that  which had  been used  by Congress in July of the
     same year,  in framing  the ordinance for the government of
     the  Northwest   Territory.     Congress   had   made   the
     qualification rest  upon citizenship  of "one of the United
     States***,"  and  this  is  doubtless  the  intent  of  the
     convention which  framed the  Constitution, for  it  cannot
     have meant anything else.

                                 [Studies in Constitutional Law:
                            [A Treatise on American Citizenship]
                   [by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)]
                                                [emphasis added]

This quote  from the  Northwest Ordinance  is  faithful  to  the
letter and  to the  spirit of  that  law.    In  describing  the
eligibility  for  "representatives"  to  serve  in  the  general
assembly for  the Northwest Territory, the critical passage from
that Ordinance reads as follows:

     ... Provided,  That no  person be  eligible or qualified to
     act as  a representative,  unless  he  shall  have  been  a
     citizen of  one of the United States*** three years, and be
     a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided
     in the district three years; ....

                 [Northwest Ordinance, Section 9, July 13, 1787]
                      [The Confederate Congress, emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 14 of 35

     Without citing  the case  as such, the words of author John
S. Wise sound a close, if not identical parallel to the argument
for the  Respondent filed in the case of People v. De La Guerra,
decided by  the California Supreme Court in 1870.  The following
long passage  elaborates the  true meaning of the Constitutional
qualifications for President and Representative:

     As  it   was  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  by  the
     Conventions of nine States that established and created the
     United States***,  it is  obvious there could not then have
     existed any  person who  had been  seven years a citizen of
     the United  States***, or  who possessed  the  Presidential
     qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural
     born citizen,  and fourteen  years a resident of the United
     States***.  The United States*** in these provisions, means
     the States united.  To be twenty-five years of age, and for
     seven years  to have  been a  citizen of  one of the States
     which   ratifies the Constitution,  is the qualification of
     a representative.   To  be a natural born citizen of one of
     the States  which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a
     citizen  of  one  of  said  States  at  the  time  of  such
     ratification, and  to have  attained the age of thirty-five
     years, and  to have  been fourteen  years a resident within
     one   of    the   said   States,   are   the   Presidential
     qualifications,  according  to  the  true  meaning  of  the

               [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]
                                                [emphasis added]

Indeed, this  was the  same exact understanding that was reached
by the  U.S. Supreme  Court in  the Dred Scott decision.  There,
the high  Court  clearly  reinforced  the  sovereign  status  of
Citizens of  the several  States.   The sovereigns are the Union
State Citizens, i.e. the Citizens of the States United:

     It is  true, every  person, and every class and description
     of persons,  who were  at the  time of  the adoption of the
     Constitution recognized  as citizens in the several States,
     became also  citizens of this new political body;  but none
     other;   it was  formed by  them,   and for  them and their
     posterity, but  for no  one else.   And the personal rights
     and privileges  guarantied [sic]  to citizens  of this  new
     sovereignty were  intended to  embrace those  only who were
     then members  of the  several  state  communities,  or  who
     should  afterwards,  by  birthright  or  otherwise,  become
     members, according  to the  provisions of  the Constitution
     and the principles on which it was founded.

               [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]
                                                [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 15 of 35

     Thus, the phrase "Citizen of the United States" as found in
the original Constitution is synonymous with the phrase "Citizen
of one  of the  United States***",  i.e., a Union State Citizen.
This simple explanation will help to cut through the mountain of
propaganda  and   deception  which  have  been  foisted  on  all
Americans by government bureaucrats and their high-paid lawyers.
With this understanding firmly in place, it is very revealing to
discover that  many reprints  of the  Constitution now utilize a
lower-case "c" in the sections which describe the qualifications
for the  offices of Senator, Representative and President.  This
is definitely  wrong, and  it is  probably deliberate,  so as to
confuse everyone  into equating  Citizens of  the United  States
with citizens  of the  United States,  courtesy of the so-called
14th Amendment.   There is a very big difference between the two
statuses, not  the least of which is the big difference in their
respective liabilities for the income tax.

     Moreover, it is quite clear that one may be a State Citizen
without also  being a "citizen of the United States", whether or
not the  14th Amendment was properly ratified!  According to the
Louisiana Supreme  Court, the  highest  exercise  of  a  State's
sovereignty is the right to declare who are its own Citizens:

     A person  who is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States**  is
     necessarily a  citizen of  the particular state in which he
     resides.   But a  person may  be a  citizen of a particular
     state and  not a  citizen of  the United States**.  To hold
     otherwise would  be  to  deny  to  the  state  the  highest
     exercise of  its sovereignty,  -- the  right to declare who
     are its citizens.
                              [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
                               [6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]

In a book to which this writer has returned time and time again,
author Alan  Stang faithfully recites some of the other relevant
court authorities,  all of  which ultimately  trace back  to the
Slaughter House Cases and the Dred Scott decision:

     Indeed, just as one may be a "citizen of the United States"
     and not  a citizen  of a State;  so one apparently may be a
     citizen of  a State  but not of the United States.  On July
     21, 1966,  the Court  of Appeal of Maryland ruled in Crosse
     v. Board  of Supervisors  of Elections,  221 A.2d  431;   a
     headnote in  which tells  us:   "Both before  and after the
     Fourteenth Amendment  to the  federal Constitution,  it has
     not been  necessary for  a person  to be  a citizen  of the
     United States  in order to be  a citizen of his state ...."
     At   page   434, Judge Oppenheimer cites a Wisconsin ruling
     in which  the court said  this:   "Under our complex system
     of government,  there may  be a  citizen of a state, who is
     not a citizen of the United States in the full sense of the
     term ...."
                         [Tax Scam, 1988 edition, pages 138-139]
                                                [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 16 of 35

Conversely, there may be a citizen of the United States** who is
not a  Citizen of  any of  the 50  States.   In People  v. De La
Guerra quoted  above, the  published decision  of the California
Supreme  Court   clearly  maintained  this  crucial  distinction
between the  two classes  of citizenship,  and did  so only  two
years after  the alleged  ratification  of  the  so-called  14th

     I have  no doubt  that those born in the Territories, or in
     the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle
     them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United
     States**  in   the  Constitution,  and  to  the  shield  of
     nationality abroad;   but  it is evident that they have not
     the political  rights which  are vested  in citizens of the
     States.   They are  not constituents  of any  community  in
     which is  vested any  sovereign power of government.  Their
     position partakes more of the character of subjects than of
     citizens.   They are  subject to  the laws  of  the  United
     States**, but have no voice in its management.  If they are
     allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived
     from the  sanction of  a Government  in which  they are not
     represented.   Mere citizenship  they  may  have,  but  the
     political rights  of citizens  they cannot enjoy until they
     are organized into a State, and admitted into the Union.

                [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870]
                                                [emphasis added]

Using language  that  was  much  more  succinct,  author  Luella
Gettys, Ph.D.  and "Sometime  Carnegie Fellow  in  International
Law" at  the University  of Chicago,  explained it  quite nicely
this way:

     ... [A]s  long as  the  territories  are  not  admitted  to
     statehood no state citizenship therein could exist.

                   [The Law of Citizenship in the United States]
                   [Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1934, p. 7]

     This clear  distinction between  the Union  States and  the
territories is  endorsed officially  by the  U.S. Supreme Court.
Using language  very similar  to that  of the California Supreme
Court in  the De  La Guerra  case, the  high Court explained the
distinction this way in the year 1885, seventeen years after the
adoption of the so-called 14th amendment:

     The people  of the United States***, as sovereign owners of
     the national  territories, have supreme power over them and
     their inhabitants. ... The personal and civil rights of the
     inhabitants of  the territories  are secured to them, as to
     other  citizens,   by  the   principles  of  constitutional
     liberty, which  restrain all  the agencies  of  government,
     state and  national;  their political rights are franchises
     which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion
     of the  congress of the United States**.  This doctrine was
     fully  and   forcibly  declared   by  the   chief  justice,
     delivering the  opinion of  the court  in National  Bank v.
     County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129.

                          [Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)]
                           [italics in original, emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 17 of 35

The  political   rights  of  the  federal  zone's  citizens  are
"franchises" which  they hold  as "privileges" at the discretion
of the  Congress of  the United  States**.  Indeed, the doctrine
declared earlier  in the National Bank case leaves no doubt that
Congress is the municipal authority for the territories:

     All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States*
     not included in any State must, necessarily, be governed by
     or under  the authority  of Congress.   The Territories are
     but political  subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the
     United States**.   They  bear much the same relation to the
     General Government  that counties  do to  the  States,  and
     Congress may  legislate for  them as  States do  for  their
     respective municipal  organizations.   The organic law of a
     Territory  takes  the  place  of  a  constitution,  as  the
     fundamental law  of the local government.  It is obligatory
     on and  binds the territorial authorities;  but Congress is
     supreme and,  for the  purposes of  this department  of its
     governmental authority, has all the powers of the People of
     the United States***, except such as have been expressly or
     by  implication   reserved  in   the  prohibitions  of  the

           [First National Bank v. Yankton, 101 U.S. 129 (1880)]
                                                [emphasis added]

     This knowledge  can be  extremely valuable.   In one of the
brilliant text  files on  his electronic  bulletin board  system
(BBS), Richard  McDonald utilized  his voluminous  research into
the so-called 14th Amendment and related constitutional law when
he made  the following  pleading  in  opposition  to  a  traffic
citation, of all things, in Los Angeles county municipal court:

     17.   The Accused  Common-Law  Citizen  [Defendant]  hereby
     places all  parties and the court on NOTICE, that he is not
     a "citizen of the United States**" under the so-called 14th
     Amendment, a juristic person or a franchised person who can
     be compelled  to perform  to the  regulatory Vehicle  Codes
     which are  civil in  nature, and challenges the In Personam
     jurisdiction of  the Court with this contrary conclusion of
     law.  This Court is now mandated to seat on the law side of
     its capacity  to hear evidence of the status of the Accused
          [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald's electronic BBS]
          [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 18 of 35

     You might  be wondering  why someone  would go  to so  much
trouble to oppose a traffic citation.  Why not just pay the fine
and get  on with your life?  The answer lies, once again, in the
fundamental and  supreme Law  of our  Land, the Constitution for
the United  States of  America.   Sovereign State  Citizens have
learned to  assert  their  fundamental  rights,  because  rights
belong to  the belligerent claimant in person.  The Constitution
is the  last bastion  of the Common Law in our country.  Were it
not for the Constitution, the Common Law would have been history
a long  time ago.   The  interpretation of  the Constitution  is
directly influenced  by the  fact that its provisions are framed
in the language of the English common law:

     There is,  however, one  clear exception  to the  statement
     that there  is no  national common law.  The interpretation
     of the  constitution of  the United  States is  necessarily
     influenced by  the fact  that its  provisions are framed in
     the language  of the English common law, and are to be read
     in the light of its history.

       [United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 891, 893 (1898)]
                                                [emphasis added]

     Under the  Common Law,  we are  endowed by our Creator with
the right  to travel.   "Driving", on the other hand, is defined
in  State   Vehicle  Codes  to  mean  the  act  of  chauffeuring
passengers for  hire.  "Passengers" are those who pay a "driver"
to be  chauffeured.   Guests, on  the other  hand, are those who
accompany  travelers  without  paying  for  the  transportation.
Driving, under this definition, is a privilege for which a State
can require  a license.   Similarly, if you are a citizen of the
United States**,  you are  subject to  its jurisdiction,  and  a
State government  can prove  that you  are obligated  thereby to
obey all  administrative statutes  and regulations to the letter
of  the   law.    These  regulations  include,  of  course,  the
requirement that  all subjects apply and pay for licenses to use
the State  and federal highways, even though the highways belong
to the  People.   The land  on which  they were  built, and  the
materials and  labor expended  in their  construction, were  all
paid for with taxes obtained from the People.  Provided that you
are not  engaged in  any "privileged" or regulated activity, you
are free  to travel  anywhere you  wish within  the  50  States.
Those States  are real  parties  to  the  Constitution  and  are
therefore bound by all its terms.

     Another one  of your  Common Law rights is the right to own
property free and clear of any liens.  ("Unalienable" rights are
rights against  which  no  lien  can  be  established  precisely
because they are un-lien-able.)  You enjoy the right to own your
vehicle  outright,  without  any  lawful  requirement  that  you
"register" it  with the State Department of Motor Vehicles.  The
State governments  violated your  fundamental rights  when  they
concealed the  legal "interest"  which  they  obtained  in  your
vehicle, by making it appear as if you were required to register
the vehicle  when you  purchased it, as a condition of purchase.
This is  fraud.  If you don't believe me, then try to obtain the
manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO) the next time you buy a
new car or truck.  The implications and ramifications of driving
around without  a license,  and/or without registration, are far
beyond the scope of this book.  Suffice it to say that effective
methods have already been developed to deal with law enforcement
officers and  courts, if  and when you are pulled over and cited
for traveling  without a  license or  tags.  Richard McDonald is
second to  none when  it comes to preparing a successful defense
to the  civil charges that might result.  A Sovereign is someone
who enjoys  fundamental, Common  Law rights, and owning property
free and clear is one of those fundamental rights.

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 19 of 35

     If you  have a DOS-compatible personal computer and a 2400-
baud modem,  Richard McDonald  can provide you with instructions
for accessing his electronic bulletin board system (BBS).  There
is a  mountain of  information, and  some of  his computer files
were rather large when he began his BBS.  Users were complaining
of long  transmission times  to "download" text files over phone
lines from  his BBS  to  their  own  personal  computers.    So,
McDonald used a fancy text "compression" program on all the text
files available  on his  BBS.   As a consequence, BBS users must
first download a DOS program which "decompresses" the compressed
files.   Once this program is running on your personal computer,
you are  then free  to download  all other  text  files  and  to
decompress them  at your  end.  For example, the compressed file
"14AMREC.ZIP" contains  the documentation  which proves that the
so-called 14th  Amendment was  never ratified.   If you have any
problems or  questions, Richard  McDonald is  a very patient and
generous man.   And please tell him where you read about him and
his computer  bulletin board (voice: 818-703-5037, BBS: 818-888-

     As you  peruse through McDonald's numerous court briefs and
other documents,  you will  encounter many gems to be remembered
and shared  with your  family, friends and associates.  His work
has confirmed  an attribute  of sovereignty that is of paramount
importance.   Sovereignty is  never  diminished  in  delegation.
Thus,  as   sovereign  individuals,   we  do  not  diminish  our
sovereignty in  any  way  by  delegating  our  powers  to  State
governments, to  perform services  which are  difficult, if  not
impossible for  us to perform as individuals.  Similarly, States
do not  diminish their  sovereignty by  delegating powers to the
federal government,  via the Constitution.  As McDonald puts it,
powers delegated do not equate to powers surrendered:

     17.   Under the  Constitutions, "... we the People" did not
     surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or
     Federal Government.   Powers  "delegated" do  not equate to
     powers surrendered.   This  is a Republic, not a democracy,
     and the  majority cannot  impose its will upon the minority
     because the "LAW" is already set forth.  Any individual can
     do anything  he or  she wishes to do so long as it does not
     damage,  injure,  or  impair  the  same  Right  of  another
     individual.   This is where the concept of a corpus delicti
     comes from to prove a "crime" or a civil damage.

          [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald's electronic BBS]
          [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 20 of 35

     Indeed, to  be a Citizen of the United States*** of America
is to  be one  of the Sovereign People, "a constituent member of
the sovereignty,  synonymous with the people" [see 19 How. 404].
According to  the 1870  edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the
People are  the  fountain  of  sovereignty.    It  is  extremely
revealing that there is no definition of "United States" as such
in this  dictionary.   However, there is an important discussion
of the  "United States  of America",  where  the  delegation  of
sovereignty clearly originates in the People and nowhere else:

     The great  men who  formed it  did not undertake to solve a
     question that  in its  own nature  is insoluble.    Between
     equals it  made neither superior, but trusted to the mutual
     forbearance of  both parties.    A  larger  confidence  was
     placed in  an  enlightened  public  opinion  as  the  final
     umpire.  The people parcelled out the rights of sovereignty
     between the states and the United States**, and they have a
     natural right  to determine what was given to one party and
     what to the other.  ... It is a maxim consecrated in public
     law as  well as common sense and the necessity of the case,
     that a sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God
     and to his own conscience.

                  [Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, 1870]
                           [defining "United States of America"]
                                                [emphasis added]

     We don't  need to  reach far  back into  another century to
find proof  that the  People are  sovereign.  In a Department of
Justice manual  revised in  the 1990  (Document No.  M-230), the
meaning  of   American  Citizenship  was  described  with  these
eloquent and moving words by the Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization:  "You are no longer a subject of a government!"

                  The Meaning of American Citizenship
             Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization

          Today you  have become  a citizen of the United States
     of America.   You are no longer an Englishman, a Frenchman,
     an Italian,  a Pole.  Neither are you a hyphenated-American
     -- a  Polish-American, an  Italian-American.   You  are  no
     longer a  subject of  a government.  Henceforth, you are an
     integral part of this Government -- a free man -- a Citizen
     of the United States of America.

          This citizenship, which has been solemnly conferred on
     you, is  a thing  of the  spirit -- not of the flesh.  When
     you took  the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the
     United States,  you  claimed  for  yourself  the  God-given
     unalienable rights which that sacred document sets forth as
     the natural right of all men.

          You have  made sacrifices  to reach this desired goal.
     We, your  fellow citizens,  realize this, and the warmth of
     our welcome  to you is increased proportionately.  However,
     we would tincture it with friendly caution.

          As you have learned during these years of preparation,
     this great  honor carries  with it the duty to work for and
     make secure  this  longed-for  and  eagerly-sought  status.
     Government   under    our   Constitution   makes   American
     citizenship the  highest privilege and at the same time the
     greatest responsibility of any citizenship in the world.

          The important rights that are now yours and the duties
     and  responsibilities   attendant  thereon  are  set  forth
     elsewhere in this manual.  It is hoped that they will serve
     as a constant reminder that only by continuing to study and
     learn about your new country, its ideals, achievements, and
     goals, and by everlastingly working at your citizenship can
     you enjoy  its fruits  and assure  their  preservation  for
     generations to follow.

          May you  find in  this Nation  the fulfillment of your
     dreams of  peace and  security, and  may America,  in turn,
     never find  you wanting  in your  new  and  proud  role  of
     Citizen of the United States.

                 [Basic Guide to Naturalization and Citizenship]
                        [Immigration and Naturalization Service]
                                    [U.S. Department of Justice]
                                      [page 265, emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 21 of 35

Executed on May 24, 1996.

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 22 of 35

                          EXHIBIT "A":

               "The Day Our Country Was Stolen:"
                 "How the 14th Amendment" [sic]
                       "Enslaved Us All"
                     "Without a Shot Fired"

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 23 of 35

                The Day Our Country Was Stolen:

                  How the 14th Amendment [sic]
                        Enslaved Us All
                      Without a Shot Fired


                           L. C. Lyon

     Most Americans  would agree  that  we,  as  a  people,  are
treated by  our public  servants -- the judges, politicians, law
enforcement and  bureaucrats who  are paid their salaries by our
taxes --  as if  we were  in complete  bondage to them.  When we
joke about being slaves to the Government, we don't realize that
we are  exactly correct, joke or not.  In fact, all those 99% of
Americans who  call  themselves  "U.S.  citizens"  are  actually
subjects of  the corporate  United States  Government -- not the
sovereign states  of the  Union.   The moment  you uttered  your
first cry  on American  soil, you became the chattel property of
the corporation  known as  the United  States of  America which,
because of the federal debt, handed title (Birth Certificate) to
your body  and soul  to the  Federal Reserve Bank, to be held in
the archives of the Department of Health and Human Services.

     As incredible  as this  sounds, it is sadly true.  The next
question is:   How  did I  automatically  become  subject  to  a
government, when  I'm supposedly  a free American?  How did this
all come  about, that  I should  be made  to register myself, my
family, and  all that  I own;   be made to obey oppressive laws;
and forfeit  almost half  of my  earnings upon  threat of  jail?
Only those  who are  "subject" to a government can be made to do
these things.   Free  American Inhabitants are subject to no one
but God, and all the laws and responsibilities which that Divine
allegiance entails.

             Which "United States" Do You Live In?

     The answer to the above questions goes back to the American
Civil War.   The  war that  was supposedly  fought to  free  the
slaves from  bondage actually  did just  the opposite -- for all
Americans then  and  in  the  future.    By  enacting  the  14th
Amendment  (which   technically  is   an  Article,  not  a  true
amendment, but  that's a  topic for another discussion), a whole
nation of  newly  freed  slaves  and  free-born  white  American
Inhabitants became  "citizens of  the United  States", i.e. of a
federal government  corporation, at  the stroke  of  a  pen  and
without a shot being fired.

     Because we  Americans are  a different breed and demand the
right to  personal freedom, those who had planned decades ago to
enslave us  (even if it took generations to do so) knew that, as
long as  we were  armed and  willing to  fight to  maintain  our
freedom, the  only way  to accomplish  this enslavement  was  by

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 24 of 35

     To proceed  further, we  must understand that there are two
"United States".   There  is the "united States" (note the small
"u"  in   "united")  which   describes   the   ideological   and
geographical position  of the  sovereign states  of America.  An
individual was the voluntary inhabitant of the state in which he
resided.   If he  did not  like the  laws or  practices of  that
state, he  could simply  move to  another state.  Each state was
sovereign to  itself, and could not be forced to accept the laws
and practices of any other state.

     The "United States of America", however, is the name of the
corporate entity  (note the capital "U" in "United") that exists
to carry out the functions delegated to it by the States for the
protection of  the Union.   This corporate entity's jurisdiction
is supposed  to be  (according to  the Constitution) confined to
the District  of  Columbia,  the  federal  territories  and  the
federal  enclaves.     Enclaves   are  areas  within  a  State's
boundaries which  are ceded  to the  Federal Government  by  the
State Legislature.

     Anyone can  come  under  the  direct  jurisdiction  of  the
corporate United  States in three ways:  (1) by living in one of
its territories  (Guam, Puerto  Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc.),
(2) by  living in  the District  of Columbia,  or (3)  simply by
choice.   Back when  America still had vast territories not-yet-
become states  and several  thousands of  people lived  in these
territories, these  people had  no  rights  protected  by  state
sovereignty.   They lived  under federal jurisdiction, which was
the reason  why people  living in territories were so anxious to
achieve statehood.   The  President could  order federal  troops
into any  territory and  enact any  edicts he  wanted.   Once  a
territory became  a state,  it had  sovereignty and,  from  that
point on, the state's rights prevailed.

     So, if  you don't  live in  a territory or enclave, and you
don't live  in the  District of  Columbia, then the only way you
could have  fallen under  the jurisdiction  of the United States
Government is  by choice.   But  neither I,  nor anyone  I know,
voluntarily or  knowingly surrendered their personal sovereignty
to the  Government, which  means that  it (our  sovereignty) was
taken from us by deception.

     This deception,  which took place in the year 1868, is what
this article  will explain -- how our ancestors were tricked and
coerced  into   giving  up  their  rights  (and  ours!)  to  the
jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 25 of 35

             Civil War Sets the Stage for Takeover

     The Constitution for the United States of America specifies
in the  opening paragraph  that the Constitution was written for
the newly  formed corporation,  not for us, the People living in
America.  Our rights come from God and are inalienable.  They do
not come  from a  piece of  paper.   And,  because  the  Federal
Government exists  only on  paper --  a man-created entity -- it
can also  be dismantled  anytime We  the People  decide  it  has
become  a   threat  to   our  inalienable  God-given  rights  of

     The  Constitution   is  the   contract  between  those  who
administer the Government's affairs and the People of the united
States.   In essence,  it states  that the  People will give the
Government certain powers necessary to administer the defense of
the States,  and control  the  commerce  into  the  States  from
foreign countries.   In exchange, the State governments (not the
individual people  -- direct  taxation by the Federal Government
is unconstitutional)  would provide  the Federal  Government the
money it  needs to  operate.  The Federal Government had limited
powers;   in fact,  the Bill  of Rights was hotly debated at the
time of its passage because there were several people who wisely
cautioned that  the Bill of Rights would eventually be construed
as rights  endowed by  the Constitution,  not  protected  by  it
(which is exactly what has happened).

     How often  do you  hear patriots  mistakenly vow  to defend
"their Constitutional  rights"?    This  thinking  reflects  the
decades of  public school brainwashing to which we have all been
subjected.   We need  to correct  each other and understand that
our rights are God-given, not constitutional.

     So, how  does the  Civil War  enter into  this  present-day
power struggle between the Federal Government and Us the People?
Slavery was  not the true underlying reason for the war.  It was
an emotional,  social issue that was used as an excuse to incite
people to  go to  war, people  who did  not realize that foreign
agencies were  responsible for  that  conflict.    International
bankers, seeing  the slavery issue as an opportunity not only to
divide the country, but make millions of dollars as well, fanned
the flames  of debate  until, under cover of the most bloody war
in the  history of  the world, they were to accomplish that very
objective --  the complete  takeover of  America.   They  almost
succeeded years  sooner, except  for the intervention of one man
-- President Abraham Lincoln.

                  "Honest Abe" Knew the Truth

     President Lincoln  was against  slavery, but  he understood
that it  was wrong  to force  the southern  States  to  give  up
slavery --  to force  Federal jurisdiction  over  the  issue  of
States' Rights.   Four  of  the  southern  States  were  already
considering the  abolition of  slavery, but  they couldn't  just
abandon it  overnight.   It would  take time.   After all, their
whole economy was built upon slavery;  a sudden disruption would
bankrupt the  South.   Lincoln understood  this.  But, it wasn't
until Lincoln  got into  office that  he began  to see the whole
picture.  He learned that the war was begun by the International
Bankers as  a means of dividing the country in two, forcing both
sides to  borrow heavily  from the  Bankers to  pay  war  debts.
Then, when  failing to  repay those  loans, the  divided America
would be  forced into  bankruptcy.   The Rothschilds  and  other
bankers could then simply foreclose on the corporations known as
the United  States of  America and  the  Confederate  States  of
America.   President Lincoln  knew he  had to  keep  the  nation
together at all costs -- including war.

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 26 of 35

                  Saved by the National Banks

     Near the end of the war, the South was on its knees and the
U.S. Government  was nearly bankrupt.  Seeing their opportunity,
the Bankers offered to loan the U.S. Government enough to see it
through.  Lincoln said no.  He would find another way.

     What he  did then  was to  ask Congress  for permission  to
print paper  money.  Even though he knew it was unconstitutional
(only gold  and silver  are lawful  U.S. money), it was the only
way he  knew to  buy provisions  for the Army -- but only if the
U.S. banks  would accept  it.   They did.  When Lincoln gave his
word that  the Government  would redeem those notes for gold and
silver at a later time, they believed him and honored the notes.
By doing  this, the  planned takeover by the Bankers was averted
-- at that time.

             The Bankers' Revenge -- Assassination

     Because he  had given  his word  to the  nation's  bankers;
because he  had promised  the South  that, upon  surrender,  the
Government would help them rebuild;  and because he had promised
the Southerners  there would be no recriminations or punishments
if they again swore loyalty to the Union, Lincoln knew he had to
get re-elected,  though he  was  tired,  tormented  by  migraine
headaches, and  worried about his suffering family life.  He had
to make sure those promises were kept.

     Lincoln's complete  thwarting of the International Bankers'
plans doomed  him to assassination at their hands.  Papers found
in Booth's locker show communications with an agent hired by the
Rothschild family.

     Weeks before  he was  killed, Lincoln  knew he would die in
office.   His spies  were reporting  plots to  kill him;  it was
only a  matter of  who got  to him  first.  So, he met regularly
with his  Vice President,  Andrew Johnson,  and educated  him as
quickly as he could so that he could follow through on Lincoln's
promises.   Johnson listened  carefully and  understood what was
expected of  him, and why.  Then, after Lincoln's murder, he did
exactly as he was supposed to do.

     In school,  when we  were  taught  this  part  of  American
history, we  were told  that Andrew  Johnson was  uneducated and
ignorant,  and   fumbled  continuously   in  office,  which  was
supposedly why  he was impeached.  Johnson was of humble origin,
but he  was an  honest, self-educated  man who  stood firmly for
what he  saw clearly  were the  best interests  of his  country.
This is what got him impeached.

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 27 of 35


     At  this   time,  the  only  men  in  Congress  were  those
representing the  northern States.   After  Fort Sumter, all the
southern States  had seceded.   After  Lincoln's death, Congress
began passing  laws to  punish the  South, in  contradiction  to
Lincoln's promise.   Johnson began vetoing them, sometimes three
and four times, until Congress began passing them over his veto.
One particular  bill that  he vetoed, the Civil Rights Bill, was
intended to  make all  former slaves  automatic citizens  of the
Federal Government,  and  under  its  direct  jurisdiction  (and
protection).   This seemed  like a  compassionate  and  generous
gesture to  the newly  freed slaves but, as Johnson pointed out,
it would have serious consequences for the Negroes.  In his veto
message in  March of  1866, Johnson  pointed out the pitfalls of
this bill:

          He [the  Negro] must,  of necessity, from his previous
     unfortunate condition  of servitude, be less informed as to
     the nature  and character  of our institutions than he who,
     coming  from   abroad,  has   to  some   extent  at  least,
     familiarized himself with the principles of a government to
     which he  voluntarily  entrusts  "life,  liberty,  and  the
     pursuit of happiness".

          The  1st   Section  of   the  bill  also  contains  an
     enumeration of the rights to be enjoyed by these classes so
     made citizens  "in every  state and territory in the United
     States".   These rights are "to make and enforce contracts;
     to sue,  be  parties,  and  give  evidence;    to  inherit,
     purchase, lease,  sell, hold,  and convey real and personal
     property";  and to have "full and equal benefit of all laws
     and proceedings  for the security of person and property as
     is enjoyed  by white  citizens".   So too,  they  are  made
     subject to  the same  punishment, pains  and penalties,  in
     common with white citizens ....
                                                [emphasis added]

     Johnson could  clearly see  that  to  immediately  place  a
string of  governmental "rights  and benefits"  upon  a  totally
naive and uneducated people as the Negroes, would also make them
easy prey  for every  carpetbagger who  would  trick  them  into
contracts, in  which they  would have  no knowledge of the legal
ramifications.   This bill  would, in  effect, make  the  former
slaves as  slaves again  to  different  masters:    unscrupulous
businessmen, attorneys and judges.

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 28 of 35

     Johnson saw  that this  bill was  also a  means of foisting
unconstitutional jurisdiction of the Federal Government in every

          Thus a perfect equality of the white and colored races
     is attempted  to be  fixed by federal law in every state of
     the Union over the vast field of state jurisdiction covered
     by these enumerated rights.

          If Congress  can declare  by law who shall hold lands,
     who shall  testify, who  shall  have  capacity  to  make  a
     contract in  a state, then Congress can by law also declare
     who, without  regard to color or race, shall have the right
     to sit  as a  juror or  as a judge, to hold any office, and
     finally, to  vote "in  every state  and  territory  of  the
     United States".

          The legislation  thus proposed  invades  the  judicial
     power of the state.  It says to every state court or judge:
     if you  decide that  this act  is unconstitutional;  if you
     refuse, under  the prohibition  of a  state law, to allow a
     Negro to  testify;   if you  hold that  over such a subject
     matter the  state  law  is  paramount  ...  your  error  of
     judgment, however  conscientious, shall  abject you to fine
     and imprisonment.

          The Legislative  Department of  the government  of the
     United States  thus takes  from the  Judicial Department of
     the states  the  sacred  and  exclusive  duty  of  judicial
     decision  and   converts  the   state  judge  into  a  mere
     ministerial officer,  bound to decide according to the will
     of Congress.

                                                [emphasis added]

     Johnson then continued with an additional warning as to the
virtually unlimited power given to appointed agents:

          The Section  of the  bill provides  that officers  and
     agents of  the Freedman's Bureau shall be empowered to make
     arrests and  also that  other  officers  may  be  specially
     commissioned for  that purpose  by  the  President  of  the
     United States.   It  also authorizes  circuit courts of the
     United States and the superior courts of the territories to
     appoint, without  limitation, commissioners,  who are to be
     charged with the performance of quasi-judicial duties.

          These numerous agents are made to constitute a sort of
     police, in  addition to the military, and are authorized to
     summon a  posse comitatus,  and even  to call  to their aid
     such portion  of the  land and  naval forces  of the United
     States or of the militia ....

          This extraordinary  power  is  to  be  conferred  upon
     agents irresponsible  to the  government and to the people,
     to whose  number the discretion of the commissioners is the
     only limit  and in whose hands such authority might be made
     a terrible engine of wrong, oppression and fraud.

          The 7th  Section provides that a fee ... shall be paid
     to each  commissioner in every case brought before him, and
     a fee  ... to  his deputy or deputies for each person he or
     they may arrest and take before any such commissioner ....

          All those  fees are to be "paid out of the Treasury of
     the United  States" whether  there is  a conviction or not;
     but in  the case  of conviction  they are to be recoverable
     from the  defendant.    It  seems  to  me  that  under  the
     influence of  such temptations,  bad men  might convert any
     law, however  beneficent, into an instrument of persecution
     and fraud.

          To me, the details of the bill seem fraught with evil.
     It is another step, or rather stride, toward centralization
     and the  concentration of  all legislative  powers  in  the
     national government.
                                                [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 29 of 35

     It is plain to see here that President Johnson saw far into
the future  as to the potential for legal and political abuse of
such arbitrary  powers --  powers that  had  never  before  been
placed into  the hands  of  a  bureaucracy  that  had  not  been
subjected to referendum by the people or constitutional question
by any  federal  court.    This  bill  (which  was  passed  over
Johnson's veto)  did, in fact, set the precedent for hundreds of
federal, state  and local  bureaucracies that  have since choked
the lifeblood of millions of Americans.

     Also, this  bill blatantly  usurped all  States Rights  and
opened a  very wide  door for  the further  usurpation of  these
rights, using other social agendas.

     The reason  Andrew Johnson  was impeached  was  because  he
fought so  hard  against  this  bill  and  the  subsequent  14th
Amendment.   His enemies  purposely did not mention to the press
(nor to  the public)  the legal  and political  ramifications of
this bill  which Johnson  had so  succinctly pointed  out;   but
instead they  broadcasted the  notion that  he was  reneging  on
Lincoln's promises  to  "heal  the  wounds"  of  the  nation  by
fighting full  rights  for  the  Negro  --  thus  making  it  an
emotional social issue.

     In fact,  Johnson was  keeping Lincoln's promises by trying
to protect  the rights of the newly freed slaves, as well as the
rights of those states which knew their own former slaves better
than anyone,  and knew  the Negroes  were not  yet ready for the
responsibilities of  citizenship.   As  Johnson  had  predicted,
after passage  of the  bill, so  many of  the Negroes had indeed
been robbed  of goods  and property  by white  charlatans and/or
thrown into  jails for  breaking commercial  laws they  did  not
understand that,  when the Negroes did come to full awareness of
the massive  duplicity perpetrated by these scoundrels, a racial
hatred and mistrust of all whites became a nationwide phenomenon
that has never been erased to this day.

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 30 of 35

                      The Final Axe Falls

     After the  bill was  passed over  Johnson's veto, and there
was no  general hue  and cry  from  the  public,  Congress  then
proceeded with the next step -- the 14th Amendment.  In order to
understand the ramifications of this heinous act of Congress, it
must be analyzed section-by-section:

     ARTICLE XIV.   Section  1.  All persons born or naturalized
     in the  United States,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction
     thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
     wherein they  reside.   No State  shall make or enforce any
     law which  shall abridge  the privileges  or immunities  of
     citizens of the United States;  nor shall any State deprive
     any person  of life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due
     process of  law;    nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its
     jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

                                                [emphasis added]

     In the  very first  line, the  amendment  states  that  all
persons born (all babies from this point on) or naturalized (the
newly freed  slaves who  were then  just inhabitants of America)
are now  citizens of  the United States (the Federal Government)
and of  the State (the State Government) where they lived.  From
the Declaration  of Independence  on, all  people in America who
lived here were Americans, residing in a particular geographical
state, and  free to move from state to state, or even to another
country.  The Federal Government, according to the Constitution,
is a  corporate fiction  that does  the bidding  of the  body of
collective states  called Congress.   At  this time,  the  state
governments  had   similar  limited   jurisdiction  over   their
inhabitants,  as   did  the   federal  government.    The  state
government's primary  function was  to act as a collective voice
of all  its inhabitants  to convey  their  wishes  to  Congress.
Congress controlled the federal government.

     The rule  of Common  Law, which  was the law of the land at
that time,  was carried out exclusively by the County Sheriff --
the Common  Law concept  of Posse  Comitatus.  Neither the State
nor the  Federal Government  had any jurisdiction in the County,
where Home  Rule was  the law.  Only by permission or invitation
by the  Sheriff could  either of  the other two governments step
foot in  his County.   The  Civil Rights  Bill, in one bold act,
forced Federal  Government jurisdiction  into  the  sanctity  of
State rule.   But  Posse Comitatus  still reigned in each state,
and the  conspirators found  the way  to usurp jurisdiction here
through the 14th Amendment.

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 31 of 35

                 Citizens, Subjects  =  Slaves

     In order  for any government to grab power and maintain it,
it must have "subjects" or "citizens".  According to Black's Law
Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "Citizens are members of a political
community who, in their associated capacity, have established or
submitted themselves  to the  dominion of  a government  for the
promotion of  their general  welfare and the protection of their
individual as  well as  collective rights.   (Herriot v. City of
Seattle, 81 Wash.2d. 48, 500 P.2d. 101, 109)"

     So, by  declaration of the 14th Amendment, all persons born
from that  point forward,  and all  naturalized people, had just
become citizens (i.e. subjects) of the United States Government,
obviously without their knowledge (babies) or understanding (the
Negroes).   The Federal  Government had  just reached  past  the
jurisdictional boundaries  of the  state and  county  lines  and
claimed all its babies and all Negroes.

     In Section  2, it  then states  that only males 21 years of
age who are citizens of the United States may be allowed to vote
in Federal  and State elections.  That means that only those men
who willingly  claimed U.S.  citizenship on voter's registration
cards (though  they didn't  realize the  implications) were also
brought in  as subjects of the Federal Government.  (The Federal
Government's power  and control  are growing fast!)  However, it
stipulated that  those who  had participated  in rebellion  (the
South) were excluded.

                         The Back Door

     At this  point, any  intelligent person can figure out that
the Conspirators  who were  using this  Amendment to  claim  all
Americans as  its citizens  -- by  deception --  were  obviously
performing  an   illegal  and   unconstitutional   act.      The
conspirators in  Congress (and  every Congressman  knew what was
being perpetrated,  and either  promoted it  or simply pretended
not to  notice) established  a "loophole"  for themselves and to
cover themselves  in case  people  began  to  catch  on.    This
loophole was  15 Statutes  at Large,  Chapter 249  (Section  1),
enacted July  27, 1868,  one day  before the  14th Amendment was
declared "ratified".   You  will not  see this statute published
anywhere except in very old books.  The Conspirators do not want
their "citizens"  to know  it exists,  and  it  has  never  been
repealed.  The text follows:

         CHAP. CCXLIX. -- An Act concerning the Rights
             of American Citizens in foreign States

          Whereas the  right of  expatriation is  a natural  and
     inherent  right   of  all   people,  indispensable  to  the
     enjoyment of  the rights  of life, liberty, and the pursuit
     of happiness;   and  whereas in  the  recognition  of  this
     principle this  government has  freely  received  emigrants
     from all  nations, and  invested them  with the  rights  of
     citizenship;   and whereas it is claimed that such American
     citizens, with  their descendants,  are subjects of foreign
     states, owing  allegiance to  the governments thereof;  and
     whereas it  is necessary to the maintenance of public peace
     that this  claim of  foreign allegiance  should be promptly
     and finally disavowed:  Therefore,

          Be  it   enacted  by  the  Senate  and  the  House  of
     Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
     assembled,  That  any  declaration,  instruction,  opinion,
     order, or decision of any officers of this government which
     denies, restricts,  impairs,  or  questions  the  right  of
     expatriation, is  hereby  declared  inconsistent  with  the
     fundamental principles of this government.

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 32 of 35

     On the  surface, this  seems to guarantee that "foreigners"
who live  in the  borders of  America cannot  be forced to claim
citizenship.  But, what this also says is that anyone who wishes
to expatriate  (i.e. renounce their U.S. citizenship) may do so,
by inherent right, and no one can deny him this right.

     The Conspirators  knew that, the "letter of the law" having
been satisfied  with this  exemption from  compelled performance
(having U.S.  citizenship thrust  upon us), they could then hide
the exemption  from general view, start promoting the "benefits"
of U.S.  citizenship in the media (and later, in public schools)
and begin setting up all of us for manipulation to obey millions
of codes, statutes, and laws;  exacting fines for breaking these
laws;   and extracting  license fees  and taxes  upon penalty of
seizure or jail.

     Free American  Inhabitants are  not subject  to the Federal
Government by  virtue of  their not  claiming U.S.  citizenship.
Those of us who have renounced our U.S. citizenship and declared
our status  as American  Inhabitants, using 15 Statutes at Large
as the  legal foundation for this Declaration of Status, are the
only ones  living in  the united States of America.  The rest of
America (U.S.  citizens --  about  99%)  are  living  in  a  4th
dimension, i.e.  in a  fictitious corporation  called the United
States of  America.  As far as America is concerned (except that
1%), there's nobody home!

                      Slavery by Election

     We can  see that,  in the 14th Amendment, those Southerners
who had  participated in  the Civil  War were excluded from this
"benefit" (U.S.  Citizenship) on  purpose --  to punish  them so
severely with  sanctions, punishing fines and terrorism from the
newly formed  Freeman's Bureau,  that a  few  years  later,  the
Southerners would  be grateful for any consideration the Federal
Government would extend to them.  When the opportunity was ripe,
such a  consideration was  enacted --  the 15th  Amendment.   It
reads (in part):

     Section 1.   The  right of citizens of the United States to
     vote shall  not be  denied or abridged by the United States
     or by  any State  on account  of race,  color, or  previous
     condition of servitude.

     By  this   gracious   gesture,   Congress   extended   full
forgiveness to  the South,  and restored their right to vote (at
that time,  considered  to  be  the  most  sacred  right  of  an
American).  At the next national election after the enactment of
this amendment,  there was  the largest  turnout of  voters this
nation had  ever seen.   The  South  wanted  desperately  to  be
restored to  the Union  and heal  their wounds.  When they heard
that, in  order to  vote, they  had to  swear allegiance  to the
United States  of America  and thus  become a  "citizen  of  the
United States"  (as required by the 14th Amendment), they did so
willingly and  without a  clue as  to what they had just done to
themselves and to their posterity.

     With the  stroke of  a pen,  the 14th  Amendment,  and  the
subsequent 15th  Amendment, had  just enslaved  an entire nation
without a shot being fired.

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 33 of 35

                     The "Forgotten" Clause

     Obviously, this  treacherous act  by Congress was enough to
have all  of them  hanged as  traitors;  but, there was one more
act of  treachery that  has  been  overlooked  by  most  people.
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment reads:

     The validity  of the  public debt  of  the  United  States,
     authorized by  law, including debts incurred for payment of
     pensions  and   bounties  for   services   in   suppressing
     insurrection or  rebellion, shall  not be  questioned.  But
     neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay
     any debt  or obligation  incurred in aid of insurrection or
     rebellion against  the United  States, or any claim for the
     loss or  emancipation of  any slave;   but  all such debts,
     obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

                                                [emphasis added]

     At that time, a hue and cry was raised concerning Lincoln's
promises  to   "forgive"  the   South's   debts   as   part   of
Reconstruction, with good reason.  But mainly overlooked was the
first part  of Section  4, which says that the debts incurred by
the  U.S.  government  were  not  to  be  questioned,  that  the
enforcers  whom  the  Government  hired  to  quell  insurrection
(today, the  CIA, FBI,  BATF, DEA, U.S. Marshals, etc.) would be
paid by the Government.  And where was the Government's money to
come from?   Answer:    Its  newly  acquired  subjects  --  U.S.
citizens.   The  States  had  just  signed  into  constitutional
amendment the  permission for  the Federal  Government  to  hire
thugs and thieves to control us, to pay them with our own money,
and that  no question  could  be  brought  to  court  about  the
constitutionality of  these actions.   This is why any effort to
bring a  suit against the Government about the Federal debt will
never be entertained by the Supreme Court!

                        A Dangerous Game

     In Europe,  Africa and  other places in the world, a despot
simply took  over a  country by  waging war.   Here  in America,
however, as  long as  Americans  were  armed  and  prepared  for
hostile armed  takeover, the  Conspirators knew that a different
technique --  a grand deception by manipulation of the laws, the
courts, the schools, the media -- must be employed to obtain the
same results.  They waged war on us long ago, but we've been too
naive to see it.  There are many who are waking up now, but they
don't see  the whole picture.  They think that if they reverse a
certain portion  of Government  abuse, we  can take  our country
back.  Tax protestors (as IRS calls them) have perfectly correct
reasons to  point out  that they are not required to file -- but
they forget  they are still U.S. citizens (i.e. subjects).  Home
schoolers  fight  bravely  for  their  right  to  protect  their
children against  Government control -- but they forget they are
still U.S.  citizens.   Legal eagles  have found  many statutory
"loopholes" to  win a  few battles  in court  -- but they forget
they are still U.S. citizens.

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 34 of 35

     Playing the  "patriot game" without fully understanding the
constitutional hold  the Federal,  State and  local  governments
have over  them is playing a dangerous game.  They may win a few
skirmishes in  their battles  with  Government  (the  Government
allows these  "wins" to  encourage us  to continue  wasting  our
energies in  useless effort),  but they  will never win the war,
and will  only bring  the wrath of Government down upon the head
of yet another one of its subjects.

     For now,  at least, the Government is respecting the status
of American  Inhabitants.   We (your  publisher L.  C. Lyon  and
writer George  Sibley) have  not had  any legal hassles from any
Government entity,  because we  are no longer U.S. citizens.  We
are the  same as  George Washington,  Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin
Franklin and  all the  other patriots were in their time -- free
American Inhabitants.    Any  U.S.  citizen  can  give  up  this
enslaving status at any time, but it must be done properly.

     If everyone  in America  were to  take back their rights as
free  Americans  again,  through  the  revocation  process,  the
Government would have no more subjects, and no more power!


[Minor grammatical and spelling edits were done to this essay by
John E.  Trumane.   These edits  were done without permission of
the author,  because Mr.  Trumane  did  not  have  the  author's
mailing address at the time the edits were done.]

  Verified Statement of Counsel to Support Grand Jury Challenge:
                         Page 35 of 35

                             #  #  #

Return to Table of Contents for

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena