Monday, April 20, 2015

Subject of God or subject of corporation?

Subject of God, or Subject of corporation?

Which one are you?

Most would say subject of god, but is that what is really happening?

Most of us claim citizenship without having the slightest clue what that entails. Here we will investigate this important issue.

But what is a citizen you ask, most would say it is a man or woman living in a country that has some form of government. That would be correct using the common understanding of the word citizen.

However, the government does not use the common meaning of the word, it uses the legal definition of the word.

Which is this....

The term "citizen" as used in government laws

In Powe v. U.S. 109 F2d 147, 149 (1940) the court determined what the term `citizen' means in federal statutes. Notice that the term `citizen,' when used in federal laws, excludes State citizens:

"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."

U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:
"A 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."

In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:
"In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ...  It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ..."

The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626: "In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122: "... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."

(Read that again. Pay attention. CITIZENS IN THE U.S. ARE SUBJECTS EVER SINCE THE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT. What part don't you understand?)

125 Fed 322, 325: "The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government."

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794: "The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"

Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520: "... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]

That's right! the US Supreme Court says that Fourteenth Amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

Notice how they say citizen is used in its political sense right?

Now read this.....

Another topic. The phrase: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94) "The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

Do you owe direct and immediate allegiance to your servants?

If you claim to be a US citizen, then you are a subject of a corporation and not god.

A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383

28 usc 3002 15a

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

No comments:

Post a Comment