Comments on Colgate v. Harvey

                        Volume 1, No. 10


                        Richard McDonald

     Everyone should  take time  to read the published court case
Colgate v. Harvey.  This case is often utilized by U.S. Attorneys
in their  briefs.   The following is a quote from page 309 of the
Lawyers Edition:

      Thus, the dual character of our citizenship is made plainly
     apparent. That  is to say, a citizen of the United States is
     ipso facto  and at  the same  time a citizen of the state in
     which he  resides.   And while the Fourteenth Amendment does
     not create  a national  citizenship, it  has the  effect  of
     making that  citizenship "paramount and dominant" instead of
     "derivative and dependant" upon state citizenship.

                    [Colgage v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427 (1935)]
                             [80 L.Ed. 299, emphasis in original]

     Now, if  the Fourteenth  Amendment DID NOT create a national
citizenship, then  WHAT did  it create?  It created a citizenship
in the  District of Columbia, commonly called the "United States"
in legal terminology.  So, by law, a "United States" citizen is a
citizen of  the District of Columbia, which is not a State of the
Union of  several States;  it is not a star on the American flag.
Therefore, the  District of  Columbia is  alien and  foreign with
respect to  the 50  common-law States  of the Union.  In law, the
term "resident"  means "alien".   I shall now establish that this
is correct:

     When America  sends an  Ambassador to  France, he  is then a
     "resident" in France and alien to France.  He is just like a
     U.S. citizen  who is  "resident" in California and therefore
     alien to the common-law and to California.

       Now,  as a  citizen of  the District  of Columbia, you are
subject to  ALL the  municipal laws  that Congress passes for the
District  of  Columbia.    This  means  that  ALL  of  Titles  7,
(Agriculture),  8   (Immigration),  12   (Banks  &  Banking),  15
(Commerce  &   Trade),  16   (Conservation),  19   (Customs),  20
(Education), 21,  (FDA), 22  (Foreign Relations) 24, (Hospitals),
25 (Indians),  Title  26  (Internal  Revenue),  27  (Liquor),  29
(Labor), 30  (Mining), 33 (Navigation), 36 (Patriotic Societies),
40 (Public Buildings), 41 (Public Contracts), 42 (Public Health),
43 (Public  Lands), 45 (Railroads), 47 (Telegraphs & Telephones),
48 (Territories  and Insular  Possessions), 50  (War and National
Defense);   all the  above attach to you personally regardless of
where you  "reside" in  the world.  (See Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S 47
(1924).)  There are some individual paragraphs that attach to the
common-law Citizens  of the several States, but they are very few
and far between.

       If you recall, the President can send his troops (citizens
of the  District of Columbia) any place in the world and make war
without   the approval of Congress.  This is a fact of law, since
he is NOT sending any Citizen of one of the several States who is
a member  of the  Sovereignty;   he is only sending his subjects,
just as the Queen of England can do to her subjects.  No approval
is needed.

      You must remember that the Fourteenth Amendment is not law.
It was  never properly  adopted or ratified.  It is a martial law
amendment adopted under martial law.  When martial law ceases, so
do all the laws that are promulgated under military authority.

                       Madden v. Kentucky

     This case  was decided  in 1940.   I  would like you to read
what the court said:

     This position  is that  the privileges and immunities clause
     protects all citizens against abridgment by states of rights
     of national  citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or
     natural rights inherent in state citizenship.

                         [Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940)]
                          [84 L.Ed. 590, at 594;  emphasis added]

       Again, I must refer you to Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404
(1935), 80  L.Ed. 299,  56 S.Ct.  252, 102  ALR 54.   The Supreme
Court of  the United States of America always states the truth in
their opinions.  In the Madden case, it is telling you that, as a
State Citizen,  you  have  natural  sovereign  rights  which  are
fundamental.   But, as  a "citizen  of the United States" a/k/a a
citizen of the District of Columbia, you have a different type of
rights;   these are  called "privileges  and immunities" and they
are different  from  those  "natural  rights  inherent  in  state

       Previously,  the California  Supreme Court also arrived at
these same  conclusions in  K. Tashiro  v.  Jordan,  256  P.  545
(1927).   It is  a fundamental  Right to be a state Citizen.  The
Supreme Court  of Maryland  in Crosse  v. Board of Elections, 221
A.2d. 431, at 433 (1966), stated:

     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.

     Now, if it is not necessary to be a U.S. citizen (citizen of
the District  of Columbia)  which is  a "privilege" (see Ex parte
(Ng) Fung  Sing, D.C.Wash., 6 F.2d 670), then WHY should you give
up a 1st class Citizenship to accept a 2nd class citizenship as a
subject of  the  District  of  Columbia?    This  "privilege"  is
regulated and controlled, as are all privileges.

     Is is  possible that you have not been told the truth of the

                             #  #  #

Return to Table of Contents for

Richard McDonald