Time: Sun Jun 29 14:51:04 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA27278;
	Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:49:06 -0700 (MST)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA14922;
	Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:48:53 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:47:11 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "Sedition by Syntax," by Ralph Schwan

[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]

              "Sedition by Syntax"

                   written by

                  Ralph Schwan

               The Upright Ostrich
           December/January, 1985-1986

                    edited by

        Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Counselor at Law and federal witness
           Founder, Supreme Law School
       website:  http://www.supremelaw.com

     Are you  a citizen of the United States?  Be
careful!  I'll tell you something that the United
States Government  will never  want to  tell you:
That's a "trick" question.  The federal (feudal?)
government will ask you that trick question quite
     It would  be better to put the question like
this:  Are you a citizen of the United States, or
a Citizen of one of the United States of America?
Do you  think the two are one and the same thing?
Your education  via government schools serves you
poorly.   Recall some  fourth grade grammar, then
check the  Constitution for  the United States of
America,  particularly   the  Preamble   in  that
important document.   Hereafter, we will refer to
this Constitution as the "U.S. Constitution".
     Let's use  a simple  example:  Consider "the
house of  Mr. Jones."   We'll rewrite it to read,
"Mr. Jones'  house."   See the  apostrophe?    It
tells  you   something  about   the  relationship
between Mr.  Jones and his house.  In most words,
you would add both an apostrophe and an "s";  but
when a  word ends  in an  "s", you do not need to
add another.  Ah, yes, you do remember that rule!
Then, a  citizen of  the United  States could  be
rewritten as  "United States' citizen", but never
as "United States citizen".  Right?  Right!
     You now graduate to the fifth grade.
     Now, for  more grammar.   Examine  the  term
"United States".   Is  it a  singular  noun  (one
thing), or  is it  plural (more  than one thing)?
By the  U.S. Constitution,  it  is  singular  and
plural!   We know that, because the terms "their"
and "them"  are used as pronouns referring to the
"United States", e.g. treason against the "United
States"  is   "levying  War   against  them"   or
"adhering to  their Enemies,  giving them Aid and
Comfort".   You probably  memorized the  names of
the "United  States" in  fifth  grade.    Was  it
boring for you?

        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 1 of 8

     But, the  term "United  States" is also used
in the  singular sense.   It  is one  Nation.   A
Nation is  a natural  thing.    This  one  exists
because of  the boundaries  of the states.  IT is
never defined  in other  terms.  The term "United
States" is  a geographical name -- one thing, one
Nation.   The United  States are  one Union.  The
United States  is one  Nation.  Are you confused?
You isn't?  I are!
     Because "United  States" is a noun ending in
"s",  it   can  be  either  singular  or  plural.
"Jones' house" could mean the house of one person
(Mr. Jones),  or many persons (Mr. and Mrs. Jones
and their  12 children).  But, in either case, as
we learned  in fourth  grade, the apostrophe must
follow the "s".
     Were you  born in  the United  States?   The
preposition "in"  shows that  "United States", in
that question, is a place -- a geographical place
named "United  States".   It is  a singular noun.
You can  only be born in one place;  so, the term
"United States"  is one  place.   When  the  term
"United States"  is  singular,  it  refers  to  a
natural place, a nation, a land.
     When "United  States" is  a plural  noun, it
refers to  the "Union"  of  the  several  states.
Unions are  things that  are "Un-natural";   they
are things, not places.  Unions, as We the People
said, need  to be  perfected;   nations cannot be
perfected.     Unions,  all   unions,  exist   by
agreement;  Nations exist naturally.
     The only  requisite for  citizenship is your
"place" of  birth.   Every Person  is  a  natural
Citizen of  some Nation.   Nature is so important
to citizenship,  that Persons  wishing to  change
citizenship must  be NATURAL-ized.  For those who
appreciate  2000-year-old   terms,  "naturalized"
means "born  again".   But, that's not important.
Just remember  that original  citizenship  exists
because of  places, not  agreements.  If you want
to get  fancy, look  up the  definition  of  "Jus
soli" in  a legal  dictionary, like  Black's  Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition (with pronunciations).
     If you  were born  in the United States (the
"Nation",  in   the  singular   sense),  you  are
automatically a  Citizen of  the  United  States,
i.e. the  United States,  one place,  one Nation.
Would you  also like  to join  the  "Union",  the
United States  (in  the  plural  sense),  "them"?
Sorry, only  states can  join this Union.  People
cannot join  this Union,  although they can serve
in Congress.   Carefully  read the qualifications
for serving  in the  U.S.  Senate  and  House  of
Representatives;   both qualifications  share one
important thing:   every qualified candidate must
be a Citizen of (one of) the United States.
     At least that's how it was intended to be.

        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 2 of 8

     In 1867, "United States" was either the name
of a  geographical place,  or the name of a Union
of states.   In  1868, a new meaning was created.
A  third   meaning.    The  Fourteenth  amendment
accomplished this  feat.   It begins  like  this:
"All persons  born ...  in the  United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States ...."
     The problem  here  is  that  the  Fourteenth
amendment uses the term "United States", first in
the singular,  geographic, national sense (in the
United States),  and then  in the  plural,  Union
agreement sense  (jurisdiction thereof) -- but it
did not  make the word "jurisdiction" plural.  It
should have  read "jurisdictions  thereof".  But,
that would  have been quite illogical, for places
do not  possess  jurisdiction.    The  Union  had
jurisdiction over  the several  states,  but  not
over People,  and We  the People had jurisdiction
over the  Union --  or so  We said.    Under  the
definitions of  the term  "United  States"  circa
1867, the Fourteenth amendment made no sense.
     Rather than to admit the foolishness of this
amendment (which  was never lawfully ratified), a
new  meaning   was  given  to  the  term  "United
States".   It became  a TITLE.   This meaning was
never imagined  by the  Framers of  the  original
U.S. Constitution.  They took great care in it to
grant no  titles to  the federal government.  The
U.S. Constitution merely describes the government
of the  United States;   it  used no Titles.  The
best example  of this  fact is that the "supreme"
Court is spelled with a lower-case "s".  The U.S.
Constitution "entitled" nothing.  "We the People"
is the  only real  title used  anywhere  in  that
document!    In  fact,  titles  of  nobility  are
expressly  prohibited   in   the   organic   U.S.
Constitution.   We the People had had our fill of
kings, and  nobles of  kings.   You  and  I  were
intended to  be the only Nobility of this Nation.
Our title was our birthright;  it was not granted
by the federal (feudal) government.  It was not a
privilege -- it was a Right, a fundamental Right,
no less.
     But,  the  Fourteenth  amendment,  while  it
attempted to establish a title, did not eliminate
or change the prior meanings of the terms "United
States", or  "Citizen", as  those terms were used
in the  organic U.S.  Constitution.  Hence, since
1868, the  term "United  States"  has  had  three
different meanings:  (1) the geographical name of
a Nation,  (2) the name of a Union of states, and
(3) a title of nobility referring to a government
operating outside  of the  several states  of the
Union.     The  first  meaning  is  singular  and
natural;    the  second  meaning  is  plural  and
created by  agreement;    the  third  meaning  is
singular and granted.

        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 3 of 8

     But, wait!  The federal government may grant
no titles  of nobility.   True.   Very true.  The
government of  the United States may not, but you
     As a  nobleman, you  can grant a title, only
you.  Plus, you can abdicate your title;  you can
trade it  for a new one.  But, you can only trade
downwards, because  the title  you were born with
is the  highest title.   You  can trade your high
title for  a low  one;   that's a Right which you
possess.   It's easy to do -- too easy, actually.
They have  also made  it  as  easy  as  possible,
because government  agents want you to join their
vast herd of subjects.
     All you need to do is to claim that your new
title is  "citizen of  the United  States".    Do
that, and  you will  instantly inform the rest of
the world  that you are a person (lower-case "p")
who is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States" [sic].  You will use "United States" as a
title conferred  upon "citizen" (lower-case "c"),
and you  will thereby  prove that you believe the
"United States" is something (someone) other than
a geographical  description, or  the  name  of  a
Union of  states.   By claiming  that  it  has  a
jurisdiction greater  than your own, you grant it
a TITLE.   The  "person" who  holds  the  highest
title of a Nation, and who subjects people to his
jurisdiction, is called a KING.
     Have you  ever claimed the title of "citizen
of the United States"?  Did you ever get a Social
Security number and card?  You did it.  How about
a passport?   Same  thing.   Passports and social
security are entitlements (read "en-TITLE-ment").
They are granted by the high noble, to the lesser
nobles.   Entitlements are granted by the "United
States" (in the singular sense).  This government
is a government of title.  It exists side-by-side
with the  constitutionally described  "government
of the  United  States  of  America",  under  the
Constitution for  the United  States  of  America
(see Preamble).
     Do you  want proof?  Take a look at anything
possessed by  this government.   On  that object,
you will  find a  label, or a placard, or a sign.
It  reads:     "property  of  the  United  States
Government."   It owns  more  property  than  any
feudal king ever dreamed of possessing, but then,
it also  has more  subjects than  any feudal king
ever had, by far!
     As a  person of  low title  under the United
States (feudal) government, you are bound to obey
not only law, but a "Code" as well.  Remember how
feudal knights  had to  obey a  code -- a code of
chivalry?   Well, the  "Code" which  a citizen of
the United  States is  bound to  obey  is  called

        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 4 of 8

("entitled")  the   "United  States   Code"   (no
apostrophe).   Originally, this  Code was  called
the "Code  of Law  of the  United States", but it
was quickly  filled with so much non-law that the
name was changed, so that persons (not "Persons")
claiming low  title would  know that  it was  for
them to  obey.   You did not realize this?  Maybe
you don't deserve your birthright title!
     At the  same time,  another  problem  arose.
The courts  described  in  the  Constitution  had
jurisdiction  (read   "judicial  power")  in  all
matters arising under the Constitution, the laws,
and the treaties of the United States, which were
made under  THEIR authority, plural, the "Union".
If violators  of the  Code were to be punished by
the courts,  or if  the courts  were to  hear any
matter under  their special  "Code", then  a  new
court system  had to  be established  -- a  court
system for  persons of  low  title  (small  "p").
These courts would be courts of title.
     What are the names of these courts?  Answer:
"United States District Court" and "United States
Court of  Appeals".   The courts described by the
U.S. Constitution  would be  "district Courts  of
the United  States", "appeals Court of the United
States",  and   "supreme  Court   of  the  United
States".  It would appear that, since both titled
courts and  constitutional courts must now exist,
side-by-side, then the judges must sit in either;
they really hold two jobs.
     You determine which court by addressing your
petition to  one or  the other.   You  pick.  The
titled courts  are no  place  for  a  Freeman,  a
Citizen of  one of  the United States of America.
These courts  have a zillion rules (published for
the "Code"),  right down to the kind of paper and
the style of type you must use in your pleadings.
The courts  of the  United States  are quite  the
opposite,  having  no  published  rules.    These
courts are  courts of  Law, convened for Justice.
Trivial things  like paper and type style have no
bearing  on   either.    Here,  substance  always
prevails over form.  For proof, examine 28 U.S.C.
2072(a), where constitutional courts are not even
mentioned in the authority which Congress granted
the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice
and procedure,  and rules  of evidence,  but only
for  titled   courts  --  United  State  district
     If you  are a  citizen of the United States,
you will  have to appear before a court of title,
at  least   in  civil  matters  under  the  Code.
Jurisdiction  in  criminal  matters  is  properly
still left  to "district  Courts  of  the  United
States".   Lucky criminals!   Counterfeiters  and
pirates fare  far  better  than  persons  of  low
title!    Well,  they  should,  for  their  Court

        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 5 of 8

follows Law  and Justice,  while a  United States
District Court follows only "Code".
     Titled  courts,   like  the   United  States
District Court, are harsh in their administration
of the  Code, for  they are bound to nothing else
(assuming the  presiding  judge  is  not  also  a
criminal).   These courts  will gladly  take  the
word of a United States ATTORNey over the word of
a  petty  citizen  of  the  United  States.    To
"attorn" is  to supervise  the transfer an estate
from the  old lord to the new lord;  it is a term
from feudal law.  When they attorn properly, they
are rewarded handsomely.
     In courts of title, rank has its privileges.
These  courts  owe  no  allegiance  to  the  U.S.
Constitution;   they need not rule by the Laws of
the United States of America (the "Union").  They
follow only  a Code.  They obey their master, the
United States (feudal) government.  These courts,
as did  the infamous  Crown  Courts  of  England,
exist only  for the  benefit of  the peerage and,
unfortunately, often  to  the  detriment  of  the
Freemen of the land.
     This "dual  court" system  is  probably  the
only reason for what, at first glance, appears to
be a  set of  contradictory "case laws".  While a
reasonable mind  can understand the potential for
divergent  court   holdings  from  one  state  to
another, the contradictions manifest in "federal"
court holdings are quite troubling, indeed.
     Ever wonder  how  the  "Supreme"  Court  can
overturn itself?   Most often, it does not.  But,
one can  quickly see that the decisions of courts
of title,  or "United  States Courts",  would oft
times   conflict   with   the   rules   made   by
constitutional "courts  of  the  United  States".
One  hears   only  matters   brought  by   titled
citizens, the  other  hears  matters  brought  by
Freemen.   Since the  decisions are  published in
the same volumes, with no distinction between the
courts, case law seems to contradict itself.
     Should you  find this "dual court" concept a
bit far  fetched, examine  the  Internal  Revenue
Code, sections  7402(b) and  7604(a).   You  will
find that  these sections  grant the authority to
two different  courts to  enforce a summons.  The
sections are  identical, word-for-word  in  every
respect, except  for  one:    one  section  gives
authority to  the "United States district courts"
and the  other section  gives  authority  to  the
"district courts  of the  United States".   For a
recent   discussion   of   this   all   important
distinction, read  "Karma and the Federal Courts"
in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.
     Why both?   Income  taxes are  excise taxes.
They are an excise/occupation tax on a privilege.
The privilege  is your  title --  citizen of  the

        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 6 of 8

United States.  A "first party" summons is served
upon a  titled person.    But,  a  "third  party"
summons might  be served  upon anyone,  titled or
not.   Thus, one court must enforce the one;  the
other court must enforce the other.
     Since a  titled person  (lower-case "p")  is
required by  the Code  to keep books, records and
papers,  the   court  of  title  can  demand  the
delivery of those documents, without particularly
describing them,  without describing the place to
be  searched,   without  the  presentment  of  an
accusation by  a party under oath or affirmation.
Should a  titled person  fail to  deliver up such
documents, he  will  find  himself  in  jail  for
contempt --  not contempt  of court, but contempt
of the  Code!   A court of title may jail him for
failing to  produce records which no one has even
claimed existed  in the  first place!  He will be
released from  jail only  when he  "creates"  the
documents which  a titled  person is  required to
     Nowhere is  the dual court / dual government
system more  apparent than  in tax  matters.   At
common law, titled individuals (but not the king)
are bound  by an  oath of allegiance, in order to
be entitled.   Thus,  income tax  forms  must  be
signed only  by persons  under oath,  persons who
are  subject   to  the  "penalties  of  perjury".
Signing such a form is a confession that you hold
title.  The form is to be signed by a "citizen of
the United  States" or  a "resident of the United
States" (singular  sense here).   Hence, a signed
tax form  is always  introduced as evidence, in a
"criminal" tax  prosecution,  to  show  that  the
defendant has  claimed a title.  Signed tax forms
need not  be notarized,  because they  conform to
affirmations made  "inside  the  United  States".
For  proof,  see  28  U.S.C.  1746(2),  and  then
compare its companion at subsection 1746(1).
     Perhaps you  have heard  that tax deductions
are granted  by the  "grace" of the United States
(feudal) government.   It's  true.   Grace  is  a
favor, a privilege.  Kings dispense grace;  kings
deny grace.   What  is given  in  grace,  may  be
denied.   The IRS will often deny tax deductions.
Search as  we may,  it is  impossible to discover
where it  is in  the U.S.  Constitution that  the
federal government  is authorized  to dispense or
deny any "grace".
     But, the  government of the United States of
America does  not dispense  or deny  grace;   the
United States  Government does.  It dispenses and
denies grace  to its  subjects -- the citizens of
the United States.  This king wears no crown, for
it has  no head.  It cannot be killed.  It cannot
be harmed.   It  cannot even  be sued,  unless it
first "grants" its own permission to be sued.  It

        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 7 of 8

is hardly  the same  government which We demanded
would always  allow Us to petition for redress of
grievances, an  unalienable Right  guaranteed  by
the Petition Clause of the First Amendment!
     This government-king  has existed  for  over
100 years.  At first, it was quite innocuous, for
it had  very few  subjects.  But, when it tricked
Us, the People, into signing away our birthrights
via reams  of forms,  its power  became  immense.
Today, this  government by  title is  so powerful
that the  original, constitutional  government of
the United  States of  America became lost in its
     There are  still two  governments.  One asks
that you  should serve  it;  the other only seeks
to serve  you.   The  government  of  title  will
entice  you   with   promises   of   grants   and
enTITLEments:   welfare,  social  security,  low-
interest loans,  grants of  exemption, grants  of
deduction.   But, it  can give  you nothing.   It
exists only  by your  authority.   It cannot give
you anything  that you  did not  already possess.
Try as it might to deceive you, it exists by your
grace -- not the other way around!
     Do Us  both a  favor:   withdraw your grace;
deny your  grace.   Be a  Citizen of  one of  the
United States  of America  again.  Stop trying to
serve two  masters;   you can't  do it.  The Holy
Bible says  so, and  it is  the Word  of the Most
High.   Stop pretending  that you  are subject to
the  jurisdiction   of  the  United  States,  and
announce that you are subject to the jurisdiction
of the  Most High,  and only  the Most High.  You
won't be,  unless you  choose to  be.   Even  the
greatest earthly  king is  only  a  king  by  the
consent of  his subjects.   Make yourself subject
only to  the King of kings.  Stop being a subject
of anyone else, or anything else.
     Be a free man!
     Refuse to  claim that  you are a "citizen of
the United  States".   This term is identical to,
and should  be replaced  by,  the  term  "federal
citizen", because  the latter  term  is  entirely
unique and  cannot be  confused  with  any  other
legal term.   Confer  at "Federal citizenship" in
Black's  Law   Dictionary,  Sixth  Edition  (with
pronunciations).   As a  Citizen of  one  of  the
United  States   of   America,   you   may   deny
jurisdiction to  titled courts.   Be  aware  that
this latter  term, also known as "state Citizen",
is  not   defined  in   Black's  Law  Dictionary,
however.   And, by  all means,  stop calling this
king by its title, the United States Government.

        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 8 of 8

                   #  #  #

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail