Time: Thu Apr 17 07:27:34 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA01781;
Thu, 17 Apr 1997 06:47:51 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA12965;
Thu, 17 Apr 1997 06:47:35 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 07:13:21 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: voter registration (2 of 3)
The Federal Zone:
Conclusions
I. State Citizens cannot register to vote under current
California State law.
II. California voter registration form has a formal affidavit by
which signer swears, under penalty of perjury, that s/he is
a "citizen of the United States".
III. Such completed affidavits become admissible evidence and
conclusive proof that signer is a federal citizen.
IV. The exercise of federal citizenship is a statutory privilege
which can be created, taxed, regulated and even revoked by
Congress.
V. The exercise of State Citizenship is an unalienable Right
which Congress cannot tax, regulate or revoke under any
circumstances.
VI. Such a Right is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, which
Congress cannot amend without the consent of three-fourths
of the Union States.
# # #
The following pages are the text of a ten-minute debate on the
subject -- 5 minutes in favor of withdrawing voter registration,
and 5 minutes against withdrawing. These materials were used
with much success in a public speaking class at the College of
Marin, Kentfield, California Republic, in December of 1993. For
more information about this and related subjects, please write to
the Account for Better Citizenship, c/o P.O. Box 6189, San
Rafael, California Republic, Postal Code 94903-0189/tdc.
Page U - 12 of 22
Appendix U
Major Proposition:
A sovereign Citizen of the California Republic
should withdraw from voter registration.
Exposition:
There are two classes of citizenship in America:
State Citizens and federal citizens
The first class consists of Citizens of one of the States of the
Union, for example:
Citizens of California,
Citizens of New York,
Citizens of Florida, etc.
The "C" in State Citizen is a CAPITAL or UPPER-CASE "C".
This class of Citizen has existed since the Declaration of
Independence and the Articles of Confederation.
The second class consists of federal citizens, also known as
"citizens of the United States" and as "U.S. citizens".
The "c" in federal citizen is a lower-case "c".
This class was first defined in the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
It was also defined by the 14th Amendment in 1868, which tried to
establish that federal citizens are citizens of the State where
they live.
But the Utah Supreme Court has ruled twice that this amendment
was never properly approved and adopted.
Also, some constitutions were printed with a lower-case "c" where
it should have been UPPER-CASE "C", suggesting fraud.
Rather than refer to these citizens as "federal citizens", the
lawyers chose the term "citizen of the United States" in order to
confuse this class with the first class.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the term "United States"
has 3 different meanings in law.
In 1945, the Court ruled that the term "United States" can refer
to:
Page U - 13 of 22
The Federal Zone:
1. the name of a sovereign nation, like other sovereigns in the
family of nations (United States*)
2. the "United States" is also the federal government and the
limited territory over which it exercises exclusive
sovereign authority (United States**)
Think of this jurisdiction as "the federal zone".
3. the "United States" is also the collective name for the
States which are united by and under the U.S. Constitution
(United States***)
Think of this jurisdiction as "the state zone".
A State Citizen is a Citizen of one of the States united, i.e. a
Citizen of the state zone.
A federal citizen is a citizen of the United States**, i.e. a
citizen of the federal zone.
The major difference between these two classes is that State
Citizens are Sovereigns, whereas federal citizens are subjects of
Congress.
Also, State Citizens are exempt from federal income taxes.
It is very important to realize that one can be a State Citizen
without also being a federal citizen.
The Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled that:
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.
The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that:
A person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a
citizen of the United States.
So, what is sovereignty?
Sovereignty is independent and supreme authority -- the authority
to which there is politically no superior.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said:
Sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for
whom all government exists and acts.
Page U - 14 of 22
Appendix U
To be a subject is to be under the control of some other supreme
authority.
A federal citizen is a subject of Congress.
The 50 States of the Union are Republics, by Law.
Black's Law Dictionary says that a republican form of government
is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the
people and are exercised by the people.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form for each State
in the Union:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a Republican Form of Government.
The California Elections Code states that an elector must be a
"United States citizen".
But the voter registration form contains a formal affidavit that
the signer is a "citizen of the United States".
This terminology corresponds exactly to the legal description of
a federal citizen.
The affidavit is also signed under penalty of perjury!
Perjury is punishable with 2, 3, or 4 years in State prison.
Therefore, registering to vote produces material evidence that
the signer has opted to be identified as a federal citizen.
If one wants to remain a Sovereign State Citizen and not be
identified as a federal citizen, then it is necessary to cancel
one's voter registration.
The California Elections Code states that one can do so without
giving any reason.
# # #
Page U - 15 of 22
The Federal Zone:
Counter Proposition:
A Sovereign Citizen of the California Republic
should not withdraw from voter registration.
Exposition:
Even though I am surprised and a bit confused to learn that the
law is so different from the common understanding of citizenship,
I have verified and honestly cannot dispute the law and cases
which are quoted so accurately by my colleague.
Due to the very serious nature of these distinctions between the
two kinds of citizens, and due to the importance of voting in a
democratic society, I am going to present arguments why a
California State Citizen should not withdraw from voter
registration.
As an alternative, I would recommend the following:
Before doing anything else, California Citizens should write to
the Registrar of Voters, requesting clarification about several
things:
1. Which meaning of the term "United States" is being used on
the voter registration affidavit (see copy attached)?
2. Is there any difference between the term "United States
citizen" as found in the Elections Code, and the term
"citizen of the United States" as found in the registration
affidavit, and if so, what is that difference?
3. Does the Registrar of Voters know that there are two classes
of citizenship in American law?
4. To which class of citizens should the registration affidavit
refer?
5. Does the Registrar of Voters know that silence can be
equated with fraud, when there is a legal or moral duty to
speak (see U.S. vs Tweel and U.S. vs Prudden)?
A similar letter should be written to the Jury Commissioner and
also to the Grand Jury Foreperson. Serving on trial juries and
grand juries is an important civic duty, in addition to voting.
If California Citizens cancel voter registration, they will not
have an opportunity to perform any of these duties, because
potential jurors are selected from voters' registration lists.
In these letters, I would be careful to enclose copies of the
relevant court cases, laws, and constitutional provisions which
were cited by my colleague.
Page U - 16 of 22
Appendix U
For example:
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]
[U.S. Supreme Court (1873)]
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 ....
Slaughter-House Cases
[United States vs Cruikshank]
[U.S. Supreme Court (1875)]
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 vs Fowler, Louisiana Supreme Court (1889)]
I would also explain my desire to become (or remain) a California
State Citizen and to remain a registered voter, in spite of the
wording on the registration affidavit.
I would also inquire whether there is a legal way for this to
happen, without running the risk of my being wrongly identified
as a federal citizen at some future date.
It is also important for the record, for the purpose of avoiding
unnecessary taxation, and for the purpose of asserting and
maintaining each and every one of the fundamental and unalienable
rights which belong to California Citizens, that this
correspondence be done in good faith and in a highly professional
manner.
There are many people, both inside and outside government, who
might react quite negatively to this information, for any of
several different reasons. For one, it is so different from the
"consensus reality" we all believe, I could envision surprise,
maybe some shock, and certainly some real opposition to this
information and to its legal implications as explained by my
colleague.
Page U - 17 of 22
The Federal Zone:
If government people, in particular, should choose to take issue
with any of these points, I would certainly want to have an
opportunity to investigate their side of the story and to
determine whether there is any merit to their divergent opinions.
Depending on how divergent their opinions are, it might be
necessary to bring a test case before the proper court, such as
the California Superior Court, in order to clarify some of these
issues once and for all.
For example, it is my understanding that one can only serve in
the White House, the Senate, or the House of Representatives if
one is a State Citizen (see 1:2:2, 1:3:3, and 2:1:5).
The courts have ruled that the constitutional qualifications for
these offices stipulate that the candidates must be Sovereign
Citizens of one of the United States; specifically, that the
term "United States" in these provisions means "States united".
This was explained by a judge in a case which went to the
California Supreme Court in the year 1870 (People vs De La
Guerra). This case has never been overturned.
In conclusion, I can only reiterate that voting is too important
to be stopped for the reasons given by my colleague.
I would look for ways to have my cake and eat it too; in other
words, I would look for ways to keep voting and also to assert my
proper status as a Sovereign Citizen of the California Republic
at the same time.
# # #
[Teacher and student comments are addressed in what follows.]
Page U - 18 of 22
Appendix U
On the lack of direct clash:
The direct clash did not occur, and was not intended to
occur, between the two speakers in this debate. The direct clash
they caused was one which occurred in the minds of the teacher
and the audience, between the "consensus reality" which they have
come to believe as absolute truth, on the one hand, and the law
as actually written and interpreted by the courts, on the other
hand. America has been deeply and systematically deceived, and
such dreadful lies will always clash with the truth, without
fail.
On the failure to examine historic aspects, especially the Civil
War era:
On the contrary, the speakers came to agree on key elements
of the Law precisely because they did examine the Civil War and
its legal aftermath, particularly the 13th and 14th Amendments.
The Utah Supreme Court wrote in 1975:
I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its
faculties, could honestly hold that the [14th] amendment was
properly approved and adopted.
[State vs Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975)]
This statement is followed by a footnote reference to an earlier
decision in which the same Court wrote:
How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a
combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny
another state a right to have representation in Congress
until it has ratified an amendment which its people oppose?
The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad
as that suggested above.
[Dyett vs Turner, 430 P.2d 266 (1968)]
Some courts credited a ratified 14th Amendment with settling
the meaning of citizenship once and for all, that is, by making
federal citizenship paramount and State citizenship subordinate.
The failed ratification proves that State citizenship remains
paramount, because it has been recognized in the federal
Constitution since the Declaration of Independence, whereas
federal citizenship first occurred in the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
This Act is merely a Congressional statute which Congress can
change, and not the Constitution, which Congress cannot change!
In fairness, however, a 20-minute debate left no time to
consider the Civil War in any detail. For purposes of this
debate, the Civil War was relevant only to the meaning of federal
and State citizenship and to its implications for the voter
registration affidavit.
Page U - 19 of 22
The Federal Zone:
How does becoming a sovereign Citizen address the tax issue:
Read The Federal Zone for a complete and detailed answer to
this question. Very briefly, the "United States" is defined as
the federal zone, for purposes of the federal income tax. If you
are not a citizen of this zone, the law says you are an "alien".
Likewise, if you are not a resident of this zone, the law says
you are a "nonresident". This is the reason why New York Citizen
and Brooklyn resident Frank R. Brushaber was described as a
"nonresident alien" by Treasury Decision 2313 in the year 1916.
It is crucial to understand that the federal government made
this determination about his status, not Frank Brushaber. The
law reads that nonresident aliens only pay taxes on income
derived from sources that are inside the federal zone; there is
no tax liability for nonresident aliens on income from sources
that are outside the federal zone.
Not convinced of its urgency:
The White House budget office recently invented a new kind
of "generational accounting", so as to project a tax load of
seventy-one percent on future generations of federal citizens.
Put bluntly, this is slavery for ourselves and for our children,
being planned and formulated by federal officials who are sworn
to support the Constitution, which explicitly bans slavery.
This Constitution is a solemn contract whose purpose is to
"secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our
posterity", not to line the pockets of a billionaire banker elite
intent on financing a worldwide socialist dictatorship. Citizens
of a Republic are not slaves; they are free. The California
Supreme Court has told us that it is not only our Right, but our
duty to protect this chosen form of government, not to genuflect
before some arrogant and ruthless commercial oligarchy.
The Grace Commission found that income tax revenues are not
paying for any government services. Those revenues are being
used to make huge interest payments to banks for a bogus $4
trillion federal debt. The debt is bogus because the Federal
Reserve, a private corporation, purchased Treasury Bonds with
money which they created out of thin air, money which they simply
printed and loaned into existence with the stroke of a keyboard.
This is fraud, and the entire nation is now being swallowed
by this octopus. The 14th Amendment attempted to authorize
Congress to lien on all land and future labor of federal
citizens, because this amendment states that the validity of the
public debt shall not be questioned. The land and labor Rights
of State Citizens are unalienable (i.e. un-lien-able).
Page U - 20 of 22
Appendix U
The IRS would collapse, maybe even the government:
This is government propaganda. We are not talking about
dissolving the IRS; we are talking about boycotting income taxes
and doing so lawfully. After all, their own Treasury Officials
admit that the tax is 100% voluntary. There will always be a
need for some government agency to collect taxes.
The government is not going to collapse. This is a "straw
man". The government would surely contract in size, but not
collapse. Personal income taxes did not become a major source of
government revenue until the start of World War II. This means
that the federal government did just fine without an income tax
for more than three-fourths of our brief history as a nation.
The next time you buy gasoline, look for the placard which
itemizes the excise and sales taxes which are levied on each
gallon that you buy. We are not questioning these types of
taxes, because they are lawful and constitutional, and because
they do support government services.
The IRS has simply become too big and too powerful for the
good of the America people. The evidence shows that the IRS is,
in fact, a criminal bureaucracy which routinely violates human
rights in their arbitrary administration of the federal tax laws.
Homes, jobs, bank accounts and entire families have been wrecked
by their lawlessness. It is time to show them who is the boss --
the American People.
We are talking about a revolution here, a revolution in the
way people think and in the way they relate to government. The
Grace Commission projected that federal waste would average $600
billion per annum thru the year 2000. Do we really need another
study to measure the effects of smoking on dogs? Congress killed
so many dogs with this program, they had to spend more millions
to fund a dog crematorium.
What is the connection between driver's license and voter
registration re: federal status?
In 1940, Congress passed the Buck Act which authorized any
federal agency to define arbitrary "federal areas". These areas
are not territorial, but contractual "fictions" which define a
"State within a state". This act has permitted Congress to
export its municipal laws into the 50 Union States.
"Traveling" is a Right, not a privilege, and the general
principle in American Law is that government can never tax the
exercise of a Right; it can, however, tax the exercise of a
privilege. "Driving," on the other hand, is defined in the DMV
Code as the chauffeuring of passengers for hire -- a privileged
activity which can be taxed and regulated by government.
Page U - 21 of 22
The Federal Zone:
The retention of a driver's license is regarded by courts as
evidence that its holder has opted to "reside" inside this
federal State-within-a-state, that is, the holder has elected to
be treated as if he lives inside the federal zone, even if he
does not. But, once again, this contract link to the federal
zone was never fully disclosed to us.
The voter registration form is a similar but clearer example
of this "election", because it states specifically that the
signer is a federal citizen.
How does the famous Dred Scott case relate to this debate?
The relationship is keen. Scott was a black man who sued
for his freedom by pleading the status of Missouri State Citizen
to a federal court. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which ruled that he was not a Missouri Citizen because Negroes
were not entitled to enjoy the status of Sovereign State
Citizens. Justice Taney told Congress that it was not the intent
of the Constitution to admit blacks into this status; Congress
would need to amend the Constitution to make this possible.
This decision ultimately led to the 13th and 14th
Amendments, but not before a bloody war had intervened. Congress
botched the 14th Amendment by failing to admit blacks and other
minority races into the status of Sovereign State Citizens; it
created instead a second-class citizenship which amounts to a
corporate franchise with the District of Columbia. Put simply,
Congress told blacks that they were free to leave, but if they
stayed, they would become "subject to the jurisdiction" of the
federal government. State Citizens, on the other hand, are not
"subject to the jurisdiction" of the federal government, unless
they choose to become so by means of valid contracts.
Remember, the District of Columbia and the other places
within the federal zone are still not Union States, by
definition, so they cannot have Sovereign State Citizens. The
California Supreme Court has explained that federal zone citizens
are actually "subjects" who cannot exercise the authority of a
Sovereign State until and unless they are admitted to the Union
on an equal basis with the other Union States.
Page U - 22 of 22
# # #
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
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
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail