Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Battle Lake [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE
In Propria Persona
Under Protest and
by Special Visitation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
FOURTH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. CR-4-96-65
)
Plaintiff [sic], ) VERIFIED STATEMENT
) IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO
v. ) GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY
) AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE:
EVERETT C. GILBERTSON [sic], ) 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), 1861,
) 1865; Rule 201(d),
Defendant [sic]. ) Federal Rules of Evidence;
________________________________) Full Faith and Credit Clause
COMES NOW Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Minnesota
state, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal
citizen"), and Defendant in the above entitled matter
(hereinafter "Defendant"), 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.
Defendant 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 My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me
God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1):
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 1 of 35
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 Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 2 of 35
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 Grand Jury Selection Policy:
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 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 Grand Jury Selection Policy:
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 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]
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:
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 5 of 35
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)]
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:
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 6 of 35
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]
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
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 7 of 35
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.
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]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 8 of 35
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]
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
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 9 of 35
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]
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**"
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 10 of 35
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).
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.**
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 11 of 35
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]
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:
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 12 of 35
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]
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:
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 13 of 35
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]
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]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 14 of 35
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]
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]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 15 of 35
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
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]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 16 of 35
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]
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:
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 17 of 35
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]
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.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 18 of 35
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.
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:
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 19 of 35
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]
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.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 20 of 35
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]
Dated: _______________________________________
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Everett C. Gilbertson
______________________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 21 of 35
EXHIBIT "A":
"The Day Our Country Was Stolen:"
"How the 14th Amendment" [sic]
"Enslaved Us All"
"Without a Shot Fired"
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 22 of 35
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 Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 23 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.
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 sovereignty.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 24 of 35
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 Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 25 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.
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
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 26 of 35
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.
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".
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 27 of 35
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 Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 28 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.
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]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 29 of 35
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)"
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.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 30 of 35
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.
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.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 31 of 35
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.
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
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 32 of 35
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.
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
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 33 of 35
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 Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 34 of 35
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Everett C. Gilbertson, 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 GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY
AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE:
28 U.S.C. 1746(1), 1861, 1865; Rule 201(d),
Federal Rules of Evidence; Full Faith and Credit Clause
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:
Henry Shea
United States Attorneys
110 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE
Attorney General
Department of Justice
10th & Constitution, N.W.
Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
10th & Constitution, N.W.
Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated: _________________________________
/s/ Everett C. Gilbertson
__________________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy:
Page 35 of 35
# # #
Return to the Table of Contents for
U.S.A. vs. Gilbertson