Leroy Michael, Schweitzer, Sui Juris Citizen of Montana state c/o general delivery Billings, Montana state In Propria Persona Under Protest and By Special Visitation Only UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. CR-95- 51-BLG-JMB ) Case No. CR-95-117-BLG-JMB Plaintiff ) ) VERIFIED STATEMENT v. ) IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO ) JURY SELECTION POLICY LEROY M. SCHWEITZER [sic] et al.) AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE: ) 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), 1861, Respondents ) 1865 ________________________________) COMES NOW LeRoy Michael, Schweitzer, Sui Juris, Citizen of Montana state and Respondent in the above entitled matter (hereinafter "Respondent"), to record His Verified Statement in Support of Challenge to the 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. VERIFICATION We, Undersigned hereby verify, 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 Our current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Us God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1): Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 1 of 36 Chapter 11: Sovereignty 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 Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 2 of 36 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. 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 3 of 36 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 government: 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 4 of 36 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 establishments. 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 sovereign. [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Volume II, page 6, commas added for clarity] [emphasis added] Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 5 of 36 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 6 of 36 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 follows: 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 7 of 36 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 "government": 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 8 of 36 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 Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 9 of 36 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] 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 10 of 36 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 follows: 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 11 of 36 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, ever. 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 12 of 36 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 13 of 36 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 14 of 36 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 Constitution. [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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 15 of 36 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 16 of 36 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 Amendment: 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 17 of 36 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 Constitution. [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 Citizen. [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald's electronic BBS] [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added] Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 18 of 36 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 Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 19 of 36 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. 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- 9882). 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 20 of 36 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. Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 21 of 36 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] Executed on ___________________________ Respectfully submitted, /s/ LeRoy Schweitzer ____________________________________________ LeRoy Michael, Schweitzer, Sui Juris Citizen of Montana state and federal witness /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell ____________________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness and Counselor at Law Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 22 of 36 EXHIBIT "A": "The Day Our Country Was Stolen:" "How the 14th Amendment" [sic] "Enslaved Us All" "Without a Shot Fired" Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 23 of 36 The Day Our Country Was Stolen: How the 14th Amendment [sic] Enslaved Us All Without a Shot Fired by 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 deception. Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 24 of 36 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. 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 Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 25 of 36 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 sovereignty. 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 26 of 36 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 27 of 36 Impeachment! 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 28 of 36 Johnson saw that this bill was also a means of foisting unconstitutional jurisdiction of the Federal Government in every state: 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 29 of 36 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 30 of 36 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. 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)" Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 31 of 36 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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 32 of 36 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. Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 33 of 36 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. 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 Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 34 of 36 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. 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! IT'S TIME TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK! [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 Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 35 of 36 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s): VERIFIED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO JURY SELECTION POLICY AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), 1861, 1865 by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following: Office of the United States Attorney United States Department of Justice c/o P.O. Box 1478 Billings, Montana state Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Executed on: _____________________________ /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell __________________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness and Counselor at Law All Rights Reserved without Prejudice Verified Statement Challenging Jury Selection Policy: Page 36 of 36 # # #
Return to Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Schweitzer (Billings)