Time: Mon Jun 30 12:43:56 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA22887;
Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:44:34 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:44:12 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
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
often.
It would be better to put the question like
this: Are you a citizen of the United States, or
a Citizen of one of the United States of America?
Do you think the two are one and the same thing?
Your education via government schools serves you
poorly. Recall some fourth grade grammar, then
check the Constitution for the United States of
America, particularly the Preamble in that
important document. Hereafter, we will refer to
this Constitution as the "U.S. Constitution".
Let's use a simple example: Consider "the
house of Mr. Jones." We'll rewrite it to read,
"Mr. Jones' house." See the apostrophe? It
tells you something about the relationship
between Mr. Jones and his house. In most words,
you would add both an apostrophe and an "s"; but
when a word ends in an "s", you do not need to
add another. Ah, yes, you do remember that rule!
Then, a citizen of the United States could be
rewritten as "United States' citizen", but never
as "United States citizen". Right? Right!
You now graduate to the fifth grade.
Now, for more grammar. Examine the term
"United States". Is it a singular noun (one
thing), or is it plural (more than one thing)?
By the U.S. Constitution, it is singular and
plural! We know that, because the terms "their"
and "them" are used as pronouns referring to the
"United States", e.g. treason against the "United
States" is "levying War against them" or
"adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort". You probably memorized the names of
the "United States" in fifth grade. Was it
boring for you?
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
can!
As a nobleman, you can grant a title, only
you. Plus, you can abdicate your title; you can
trade it for a new one. But, you can only trade
downwards, because the title you were born with
is the highest title. You can trade your high
title for a low one; that's a Right which you
possess. It's easy to do -- too easy, actually.
They have also made it as easy as possible,
because government agents want you to join their
vast herd of subjects.
All you need to do is to claim that your new
title is "citizen of the United States". Do
that, and you will instantly inform the rest of
the world that you are a person (lower-case "p")
who is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States" [sic]. You will use "United States" as a
title conferred upon "citizen" (lower-case "c"),
and you will thereby prove that you believe the
"United States" is something (someone) other than
a geographical description, or the name of a
Union of states. By claiming that it has a
jurisdiction greater than your own, you grant it
a TITLE. The "person" who holds the highest
title of a Nation, and who subjects people to his
jurisdiction, is called a KING.
Have you ever claimed the title of "citizen
of the United States"? Did you ever get a Social
Security number and card? You did it. How about
a passport? Same thing. Passports and social
security are entitlements (read "en-TITLE-ment").
They are granted by the high noble, to the lesser
nobles. Entitlements are granted by the "United
States" (in the singular sense). This government
is a government of title. It exists side-by-side
with the constitutionally described "government
of the United States of America", under the
Constitution for the United States of America
(see Preamble).
Do you want proof? Take a look at anything
possessed by this government. On that object,
you will find a label, or a placard, or a sign.
It reads: "property of the United States
Government." It owns more property than any
feudal king ever dreamed of possessing, but then,
it also has more subjects than any feudal king
ever had, by far!
As a person of low title under the United
States (feudal) government, you are bound to obey
not only law, but a "Code" as well. Remember how
feudal knights had to obey a code -- a code of
chivalry? Well, the "Code" which a citizen of
the United States is bound to obey is called
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
courts.
If you are a citizen of the United States,
you will have to appear before a court of title,
at least in civil matters under the Code.
Jurisdiction in criminal matters is properly
still left to "district Courts of the United
States". Lucky criminals! Counterfeiters and
pirates fare far better than persons of low
title! Well, they should, for their Court
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
possess.
Nowhere is the dual court / dual government
system more apparent than in tax matters. At
common law, titled individuals (but not the king)
are bound by an oath of allegiance, in order to
be entitled. Thus, income tax forms must be
signed only by persons under oath, persons who
are subject to the "penalties of perjury".
Signing such a form is a confession that you hold
title. The form is to be signed by a "citizen of
the United States" or a "resident of the United
States" (singular sense here). Hence, a signed
tax form is always introduced as evidence, in a
"criminal" tax prosecution, to show that the
defendant has claimed a title. Signed tax forms
need not be notarized, because they conform to
affirmations made "inside the United States".
For proof, see 28 U.S.C. 1746(2), and then
compare its companion at subsection 1746(1).
Perhaps you have heard that tax deductions
are granted by the "grace" of the United States
(feudal) government. It's true. Grace is a
favor, a privilege. Kings dispense grace; kings
deny grace. What is given in grace, may be
denied. The IRS will often deny tax deductions.
Search as we may, it is impossible to discover
where it is in the U.S. Constitution that the
federal government is authorized to dispense or
deny any "grace".
But, the government of the United States of
America does not dispense or deny grace; the
United States Government does. It dispenses and
denies grace to its subjects -- the citizens of
the United States. This king wears no crown, for
it has no head. It cannot be killed. It cannot
be harmed. It cannot even be sued, unless it
first "grants" its own permission to be sued. It
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
shadow.
There are still two governments. One asks
that you should serve it; the other only seeks
to serve you. The government of title will
entice you with promises of grants and
enTITLEments: welfare, social security, low-
interest loans, grants of exemption, grants of
deduction. But, it can give you nothing. It
exists only by your authority. It cannot give
you anything that you did not already possess.
Try as it might to deceive you, it exists by your
grace -- not the other way around!
Do Us both a favor: withdraw your grace;
deny your grace. Be a Citizen of one of the
United States of America again. Stop trying to
serve two masters; you can't do it. The Holy
Bible says so, and it is the Word of the Most
High. Stop pretending that you are subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States, and
announce that you are subject to the jurisdiction
of the Most High, and only the Most High. You
won't be, unless you choose to be. Even the
greatest earthly king is only a king by the
consent of his subjects. Make yourself subject
only to the King of kings. Stop being a subject
of anyone else, or anything else.
Be a free man!
Refuse to claim that you are a "citizen of
the United States". This term is identical to,
and should be replaced by, the term "federal
citizen", because the latter term is entirely
unique and cannot be confused with any other
legal term. Confer at "Federal citizenship" in
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (with
pronunciations). As a Citizen of one of the
United States of America, you may deny
jurisdiction to titled courts. Be aware that
this latter term, also known as "state Citizen",
is not defined in Black's Law Dictionary,
however. And, by all means, stop calling this
king by its title, the United States Government.
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