Appendix Y
Memoranda of Law
Author's Note:
These Memoranda of Law have been adapted and updated
from the files FMEMOLAW and 9THAPPEA on Richard McDonald's electronic bulletin
board system (BBS). See references to
MEMOLAW and FMEMOLAW in Chapter 11.
Richard McDonald has given his generous permission to
publish the following versions of these documents as another Appendix in the
third and subsequent editions of The Federal Zone.
Editing, minor additions and grammatical clarifications
were done by John E. Trumane, also with Richard McDonald's approval.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ______________________
) NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
Plaintiff )
) AND
)
v. ) DEMAND FOR HEARING
)
) TO ORDER PROOF
Defendant/Citizen )
) OF JURISDICTION
)
TO ALL INTERESTED
PARTIES:
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE that a hearing has been requested by the Accused Common Law Citizen
[DEFENDANT] to take place on the ________ day of ___________________, 1994, at _____________
hours in Courtroom _______, of the above entitled Court located at
________________.
1. This hearing has been called to resolve
certain conclusions of law which are in controversy. The demand for this hearing constitutes a direct challenge to the
jurisdiction of this Court in the instant matter at bar. The accused Citizen [DEFENDANT] is aware
that he has been compelled to participate in this action under threat of arrest
and incarceration, should he fail to appear when ordered to do so.
2. The subject matter jurisdiction of this
Court is not in question here. Rather,
because the matter is criminal in nature and involves a compelled performance
to what is essentially derived from Roman Civil (Administrative) Law, the
Accused herewith challenges the In
Personam jurisdiction of this Court. The Accused does so on the ground that
the Plaintiff has failed to provide an offer of proof that the Accused is
subject to the legislative equity jurisdiction in which this Court intends to
sit to hear and determine only the facts of this matter, and not the law,
arising from a "Bill of Pains and Penalties".
3. It is well known that jurisdiction may be challenged
at any time as an issue of law because, absent jurisdiction, all acts
undertaken under the color of statute or under the color of ordinance are null
and void ab initio (from their
inception).
4. Because the Accused was compelled, under
threat of further damage and injury, to enter this Court to demand relief, this
appearance is SPECIAL, and not general in nature.
5. The argument which follows sets forth the
nature of the controversy "At Law".
This Court is bound by its oath of office to sit on the Law side of its
jurisdiction to hear the controversy in a neutral capacity and to make a fair
and impartial determination.
6. This document, and the argument contained
herein, is intended to be the basis for further action on appeal, should this Court
fail to afford a complete hearing on the law of the matter at the noticed
request of the Accused. Furthermore, a
failure of this Court to seat on the Law side of its jurisdiction to determine
this timely question will give the Accused cause to file for a Writ of
Prohibition in a higher Court.
1. The Constitution of the United States of
America (1787) is the supreme Law of the Land.
The Constitution of State of California must be construed in harmony
with the supreme Law of the Land; otherwise,
the State of California has violated its solemn contract with the Union of
States known as the United States of America, and the question raised herein
becomes one which is a proper original action before the Supreme Court of the
United States, sitting in an Article 3 capacity.
2. An employee of the Internal Revenue Service
has submitted allegations in what amounts to a "Bill of Pains and
Penalties" alleging that I, [DEFENDANT], have somehow failed to perform
according to the terms of some agreement for specific performance on my part.
3. By submitting this Bill of Pains and
Penalties, the individual in question has accused [DEFENDANT] of failing to
perform specifically to some legislative statute which is being presented as
evidence of the law. Statutes are not
laws; they are administrative
regulations which are civil in nature, even when they carry sanctions of a
criminal nature, unless there is an injured party who is brought forward as a corpus delicti.
4. Thus, because of this unsupported conclusion
of law, and because the Internal Revenue Service has administratively decided
that the Accused is subject to the statutes in question, the Accused Citizen
holds that a contrary conclusion of law exists to challenge the jurisdiction of
this Court. Therefore, this Court must
now sit in a neutral position, on the Law side of its jurisdiction, to hear and
resolve the question of controversial positions of law as they affect its
jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction In
Personam.
5. This argument is intended to serve as both a
defense "At Law" in this Court, and as the basis of future actions,
should it become necessary to appeal the question presented to a higher
judicial authority.
6. If the Accused Citizen is correct, and if
this Court is sitting to hear the violation of a regulatory statute, then it is
possible that the judges of this Court, in hearing this matter, are acting in
an administrative capacity rather than a judicial capacity. This issue is discussed in detail in the
argument which follows.
7. This Court is placed on NOTICE that, if it
fails to sit and hear this issue "At Law" upon a timely request, then
you may have violated your oath of office to uphold and defend the
Constitutions of the United States of America (1787) and the California
Republic (1849). Such an act will serve
to place you and the other parties to this action outside the realm of judicial
immunity and subject to future action by this Accused California Citizen. The Prosecutor in this action is
specifically placed on NOTICE that s/he carries no shirttail immunity should
s/he continue to prosecute, in the absence of a determination "At
Law" of the question presented herein before trial.
JURISDICTION
8. In 1849, California became one of the
several States in the Union of States known as the United States of
America. California is a "Common
Law" State, meaning that the Common Law, as derived from the common law of
England, is a recognized form of law in the State of California.
9. Article 3 of the Constitution of the United
States of America gives "judicial" power to the various courts, among
them the District Courts. What is not
generally recognized is that the District Courts may seat in different
jurisdictions. Judges may wear different
hats, so to speak, depending on the nature of the case brought before them.
10. This Court may sit "At Law" to hear
crimes and civil complaints involving a damage or injury which is unlawful
under the Common Law of a State; or it
may seat in equity to determine specific performance to a contract in
equity. Alternatively, as a creation of
the foreign Corporate State, this Court may seat administratively in a fiction
which may be termed "legislative equity", under authority to regulate
activities not of common right, such as commerce for profit and gain, or other
privileged activities.
11. The Internal Revenue Code is essentially a
"civil, regulatory statute" which was enacted in 1939 to tax and
regulate employees of the Federal Government and "citizens of the
United States" (i.e., of the
District of Columbia), and to set forth rules and regulations for the
production of revenue for the "United States", as defined in the U.S.
Constitution.
12. It is an unlawful abuse of procedure to use
civil statutes as "evidence of the law" in a criminal matter,
particularly when a United States Code has not been enacted into positive law
(see, specifically, IRC 7851(a)(6)(A)).
13. Both civil and criminal matters "At
Law" require that the complaining party be a victim of some recognizable
damage. The "Law" cannot
recognize a "crime" unless there is a victim who properly claims to
have been damaged or injured.
14. Regulatory statutes, on the other hand, are
enacted under the police power of State and Federal Governments to regulate
activities not of common right. All
statute law is inferior to, and bound by, the restrictions of the
Constitution. These
"regulatory" statutes operate as "law" on the subjects of those statutes, and
violations may carry sanctions of a criminal nature, even in the absence of a
victim or injury.
15. A self-evident truth which distinguishes
"crimes" under the Law, from "offenses of a criminal
nature" under regulatory statutes, is the difference between Rights
afforded to a defendant in a criminal
proceeding, and "rights" available to a defendant under "due
process" in a statutory
proceeding.
16. In the case of true crimes "At
Law", the Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT] enjoys all his fundamental rights
as guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions, including both
"substantive" and "procedural" due process. In contrast, when regulatory offenses
"of a criminal nature" are involved, the statutory defendant cannot
demand constitutional rights, since only certain "civil rights" have
been granted in these actions, and only "procedural due process",
consisting of the right to be heard on the facts alone, is allowed. Constitutional rights and substantive due
process are noticeably absent.
Therefore, the Court must be seated in some jurisdiction other than "At Law", in order
to hear an alleged violation of a regulatory statute.
17. The Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT],
hereby places all parties and the Court on NOTICE, that he is not a "citizen
of the United States" under the so-called 14th Amendment, i.e., a juristic person or a franchised
person who can be compelled to perform under the regulatory Internal Revenue
Code, which is civil in nature.
Moreover, the Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT] hereby challenges
the In Personam jurisdiction of the
Court with this contrary conclusion of law.
This Court is now mandated to seat on the Law side of its capacity to
hear evidence of the status of the Accused Citizen.
18. The Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT]
contends that the Internal Revenue Service made a false conclusion of law in an
administrative capacity when it first brought this action before the Court, and
in so doing failed to impart jurisdiction upon this Court to seat and hear this
matter in a jurisdiction of legislative equity.
19. The Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT]
now demands that the attorney for the Plaintiff in this matter step forward
with an offer of proof that the Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT], has
lost his status as a Common Law Citizen of the California Republic, and is now
a "resident" of this State who can be compelled to perform to the
letter of every civil statute because he is either an immigrant alien, a
statutory resident (14th Amendment citizen), a juristic person (corporation),
or an enfranchised person (i.e., one
who has knowingly, willingly and voluntarily entered into an agreement for the
exercise of a privilege or the receipt of a benefit and for the attendant
considerations carried with the grant of that privilege or benefit).
20. Once jurisdiction is challenged, this Court
must sit on the Law side of its jurisdiction as a neutral arbitrator, before
the allegations of statutory wrongdoing can proceed. Failure to do so may subject the judge of this Court to charges
of perjury for violating the oath of office by refusing to uphold and protect
the rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitutions of the California
Republic and of the United States of America.
21. The Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT]
requests that this Court take judicial notice that he has been compelled to
enter this Court to answer the allegation, and contends that the allegations
are founded upon false conclusions of law.
The Memorandum of Law which follows will set forth the position of the
Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT], and the record will show that no
evidence is before this Court which contradicts the position of Citizen
[DEFENDANT], except a mere fiction of law.
This fiction of law cannot stand in the face of a clear and direct
challenge.
Dated , 199__
Respectfully
submitted
with explicit
reservation of all my unalienable rights
and without prejudice to any of my unalienable
rights,
Citizen of the
California Republic
In Propria Persona, Sui Juris
CLASSES OF
CITIZENSHIP
1. The Constitution for the United States of
America recognizes several classes of people who exist in this Union of States,
as described in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 (1:2:3).
2. This Court is herewith mandated to take
judicial notice of the Constitution for the United States of America, the
Constitution of the California Republic, the Statutes at Large of the United
States of America, and all case law presented herein, pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Evidence, Section 201, et seq.,
and Article 4, Section 1 (4:1) of the Constitution for the United States of
America (1787).
3. Excluding "Indians not taxed",
since they are not under consideration in this matter, we are left with two
other classes of individuals defined in 1:2:3 of the U.S. Constitution, to wit:
"free Persons" and "three-fifths of all other Persons".
4. The term "three fifths of all other
Persons" referred to the Black slave population and all others of races other than "white" who could
not and did not have Common Law Citizenship of one of the several States of the
Union, at the time the Constitution was adopted. (For an in-depth analysis of this fact, see the cases of Dred
Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856);
U.S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 39;
Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 74 (1873); Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43
(1872); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898); and K. Tashiro
v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 239 (1927); et al.)
5. The Thirteenth Amendment, officially and
lawfully ratified in 1865, served only to abolish slavery within the corporate
United States. No race other than the
white race could claim Common Law Citizenship of one of the several States,
which Citizenship was afforded the protection of the Constitutions. (This is discussed in depth in Dred Scott
v. Sandford supra).
6. Further proof that this argument applies to
the State of California is found in Article 2, Section 1 of the Original
California Constitution (1849) which states in part: "Every WHITE male citizen
of the United States, and every WHITE male citizen of Mexico ..." [emphasis added]. Obviously, this provision excluded all other races from being
Common Law Citizens of California and from having the full protection of the
State and Federal Constitutions. This
was the case even before the famous Dred
Scott decision. It is most notable
that the California Constitution was altered after the so-called 14th Amendment
so as to delete all references to "white" male Citizens, and today it
refers only to "persons".
7. Following the decision in Dred Scott supra, Congress allegedly enacted and
ratified the so-called 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States
of America to afford "statutory citizenship" status to those who were
deemed excluded from this Common Law status under the Supreme Court's
interpretations of the Constitution.
This event unfolds in detail in the case law surrounding the 13th and
14th Amendments, with a very significant difference which is of great
importance to the instant matter.
8. Such cases as the Slaughter House Cases
supra; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908); K. Tashiro v. Jordan supra;
among many others, all declared that under the Law, "there is a clear
distinction between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United
States".
9. A famous French statesman, Fredrick Bastiat,
noted in the early 1800's that if
freedom were to be destroyed in America, it would result from the question of
slavery and from the failure to equate all races and all humans as
"equals". The Accused is
not responsible for the errors of the past and elects not to dwell at length on
this subject. However, the so-called
14th Amendment must now be discussed and, as abhorrent as it may sound, it is a
matter of fact and law that this is the position (intentional or unintentional)
which forms the basis of the law with which we live today.
10. In brief, as a result of the 13th Amendment,
the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Union of States known as the United
States of America was founded by
"white" people and for
"white" people, and only
"white" people could enjoy the Rights, Privileges and Immunities
afforded and protected by the Federal and State Constitutions. This fact is most eloquently set forth in Dred
Scott v. Sandford supra, in
stating that "... if a black nation were to adopt our Constitution
verbatim, they would have the absolute right to restrict the right of
citizenship only to the black population if they chose to do so ...."
11. To overcome the decision in Dred Scott
supra, the so‑called 14th
Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America was allegedly
ratified "at the point of a bayonet", and was "declared" to
be a part of that Constitution in the year 1868. However, an examination of the ratification by the several States
shows that various improper proceedings occurred which, in effect, nullify the
Amendment. "I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its
faculties, could honestly hold that the
amendment was properly approved and adopted." State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936 (1975); see also Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d.
266 (1968) for historical details.
12. Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT] will
not digress into an in-depth dissertation of the bogus ratification of the
so-called 14th Amendment, because the only necessary point to be made here is
that the so-called 14th Amendment had a profound effect upon the Union of these
United States, and this effect continues to the present time.
13. The Original Constitution for the United
States of America (1787) refers to Common Law Citizens of the several
States in the Preamble, in Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1 (4:2:1), and in
numerous other sections. Always, the
word Citizen is spelled with an upper-case "C" when referring to this
class of Common Law Citizen as a "Citizen of the United
States", i.e., as a "Citizen
of one of the United
States". See People v. De La
Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870).
14.
In contrast, the so-called 14th
Amendment utilizes a lower-case "c" to distinguish this class of citizens
whose status makes them "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a
statutory "citizen of the United States". Similarly, "Person" was spelled
with an UPPER-CASE "P" prior to the so-called 14th Amendment, as
opposed to "person" with a lower-case "p" in Section 1 of
the amendment itself.
15. In law, each word and each use of the word,
including its capitalization or the lack of capitalization, has a distinctive
legal meaning. In this case, there
never was the specific status of a "citizen of the United
States" until the advent of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (14 Stat. 27) which
was the forerunner of the so-called 14th Amendment. (See Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855). The definition of the "United
States" is discussed in the next section of this Memorandum.)
16. Before the so-called 14th Amendment was
declared to be a part of the U.S. Constitution, there were a number of State
"residents" who could not enjoy "Common Law Citizenship"
in one of the several States under that Constitution, because they were not
"white". The effect of the
so-called 14th Amendment was to give to all those residents a citizenship
in the nation-state that was created by Congress in the year 1801 and named the
"United States". (See 2 Stat.
103; see also U.S. v. Eliason,
41 U.S. 291, 16 Peter 291, 10 L.Ed. 968 (1842); U.S. v. Simms, 1 Cranch 255, 256 (1803).) The original Civil Rights Act of 1866 was
not encompassing enough, so it was expanded in the year 1964; but the legal effect was the same, namely,
to grant to "citizens of the United States" the equivalent
rights of the Common Law white Citizens of the several States. In reality, however, those "equivalent
rights" are limited by various statutes, codes and regulations and can be
changed at the whim of Congress.
17. Under the Federal and State Constitutions,
"... We the People" did not surrender our individual sovereignty to
either the State or Federal Government.
Powers "delegated" do not equate to powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the
majority cannot impose its will upon the minority simply because some
"law" is already set forth.
Any individual can do anything he or she wishes to do, so long as it
does not damage, injure or impair the same Right of another individual. The concept of a corpus delicti is relevant here, in order to prove some
"crime" or civil damage.
18. The case law surrounding the 13th and 14th
Amendments all rings with the same message:
"These amendments did not change the status of Common Law Citizenship
of the white Citizens of one of
the several States of the Union" (now 50 in number).
19. This goes to the crux of the controversy
because, under the so-called 14th Amendment, citizenship is a privilege
and not a "Right". (See American
and Ocean Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511 (1828); Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924).)
20. It was never the intent of the so-called 14th
Amendment to change the status of the Common Law Citizens of the several
States. (See People v. Washington,
36 C. 658, 661 (1869); French v.
Barber, 181 U.S. 324 (1900); MacKenzie
v. Hare, 60 L.Ed. 297). Intent is
always decisive and conclusive on the courts.
21. However, over the years, the so-called 14th
Amendment has been used to create a fiction and to destroy American freedom
through administrative regulation. How
is this possible? The answer is
self-evident to anyone who understands the law, namely, a "privilege"
can be regulated to any degree,
including the alteration and even the revocation of that privilege.
22. Since the statutory status of "citizen
of the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (1866 Civil
Rights Act) is one of privilege and not of Right, and since the so‑called
14th Amendment mandates that both Congress and the several States take measures
to protect these new "subjects", then both the Federal and State
governments are mandated to protect the privileges and immunities of ONLY these
"citizens of the United States". (See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).)
23. Of course, the amount of protection afforded
has a price to pay, but the important fact is that the "privilege" of
citizenship under the so-called 14th Amendment can be regulated or
revoked because it is a "privilege" and not a RIGHT. It is here that the basic, fundamental
concept of "self-government" turns into a King "governing his
subjects".
24. One can be called a "freeman", but
that was a title of nobility granted by a King. To be really free encompasses a great deal more than grants of
titles and privileges.
25. Over the years since 1787, because our
forefathers would have rather fought than bow to involuntary servitude, the
"powers that be" have slowly and carefully used the so-called 14th
Amendment and the Social Security Act to force primary State Citizenship
into relative extinction, in the eyes of the courts. Nevertheless, this class of Common Law Citizens is not
extinct yet; it is simply being
ignored, in order to maintain and enlarge a revenue base for Congress.
26. Since the State of California has been
mandated by the so-called 14th Amendment to protect the statutory "citizens
of the United States", and since the People in general have been falsely
led to obtain "Social Security Numbers" as "U.S. citizens",
the State of California, under prompting by the Federal Government, has used
the licensing and registration of vehicles and people under the "equal
protection" clause for the "Public Welfare" to perpetuate a
scheme of revenue enhancement and regulation.
This scheme has been implemented, in part, by promoting the fiction that
the Common Law "Citizens of a State of the Union of several
States" can be regulated to the same degree as statutory "citizens
of the United States".
27. I, [DEFENDANT], contend that both the State
of California and the Federal Government (known as the "United
States") are committing an act of GENOCIDE upon the Common Law State Citizens
of the several States by perpetrating and perpetuating the "fiction of
law" that everyone is a statutory "citizen of the
United States".
This
allegation is now discussed by proving exactly what the "United
States" means and in what capacity it now operates.
28. As we begin, it must be noted that this Common
Law State Citizen alleges "fraud" by the State and Federal
Governments for failing to inform the People that they are all included
(through the use of a fiction of law) in that statutory class of persons called
"citizens of the United States".
29. The use of this fiction of law is
particularly abhorrent in view of the fact that, when arbitrarily applied to
everyone, the States lose their sovereignty, the Common Law Citizens of
the State lose their fundamental rights, and the "citizens of the
United States" lose the guidelines which established their "civil
rights". The net effect is that
these actions have lowered everyone's status to that of a "subject".
30. There is a clear distinction between the
meanings of "United States" and "United States of America". The People of America have been fraudulently
and purposely misled to believe that these terms are completely synonymous in
every context.
31. In fact, in Law the term "United States
of America" refers to the several States which are "united by and
under the Constitution"; the term
"United States" refers to that geographical area defined in Article
1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2)
of the Federal Constitution.
32. In 1802, the "Congress Assembled" incorporated
a geographical area known as the "United States". The "United States" is, therefore,
a nation-state which is separate and unique unto itself. Furthermore, even though the "United
States" is not a member of the "Union of States united by and under
the Constitution", it is bound by that Constitution to restrict its
activities in dealing with the several States and with the Common Law Citizens
of those States. Under 1:8:17 and 4:3:2
of the Constitution for the United States of America (1787), Congress has exclusive power to legislate and
regulate the inhabitants of its geographical territory and its statutory "citizens"
under the so‑called 14th Amendment, wherever they are
"resident", even if they do inhabit one of the 50 States of the
Union.
33. The term "United States" has always
referred to the "Congress Assembled", or to those geographical areas
defined in 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 in the U.S. Constitution. The proof of this fact is found in the Articles of Confederation.
Whereas
the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress Assembled did on the
fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred
and Seventy Seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree
to certain Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between the States of
....
ARTICLE
I. The title of this confederacy shall
be "The United States of America".
ARTICLE
II. Each State retains its sovereignty,
freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not
by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress
Assembled.
NOTE: The term "United States" as
used therein refers expressly to "Congress Assembled" on
behalf of the several States which comprise the Union of States (now 50 in
number).
34. As can readily be seen from the quote below,
with three separate and distinct definitions for the term "United
States", it becomes absolutely necessary to separate and define each use
of this term in law. It is equally as
necessary to separate and define to whom the law applies when there are two
classes of citizenship existing side-by-side, with separate and distinct
rights, privileges and immunities for each.
Such a separate distinction is not made in the Internal Revenue
Code. Citizens of the California
Republic are nowhere defined in this Code, or in its regulations, but are
expressly omitted as such and
identified indirectly at best (see
IRC 7701(b)(1)(B)).
The
term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign
occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in a family of
nations. It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States
extends, or it may be the collective name of the States which are united by
and under the Constitution.
[Hooven &
Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
[65 S.Ct. 870,
880, 89 L.Ed. 1252]
[emphasis added]
35. The term "United States", when used
in its territorial meaning, encompasses the areas of land defined in 1:8:17 and
4:3:2, nothing more. In this respect,
the "United States" is a separate Nation which is foreign with respect to the States
united by and under the Constitution, because the "United States" as such has never applied for admission
to the Union of States known as the "United States of America". Accordingly, statutory "citizens
of the United States", who are "subject to the jurisdiction
thereof", are defined in the wording of the so‑called 14th Amendment
and of The Civil Rights Acts. At best,
this so-called Amendment is a "private Act", rather than a public
act, which designates a class of people who are unique to the territorial
jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, the Federal Territories and
Possessions, and the land which has been ceded by the Legislatures of the 50
States to the foreign nation-state of the "United States" for forts,
magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and "other needful buildings" (see
1:8:17 and 4:3:2). Collectively, this
territorial jurisdiction is now termed "The Federal Zone" to
distinguish it uniquely from the nation as a whole and from the 50 States of
the Union. The "nation" can,
therefore, be defined as the mathematical union
of the federal zone and the 50 States (using the language of set theory).
36. The District of Columbia is technically a
corporation and is only defined as a "State" in its own codes and
under International Law (e.g., see
IRC 7701(a)(10)).
37. The several States which are united by and under
the Constitution are guaranteed a "Republican" (or "rule of
law") form of government by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. However, the foreign nation-state created by
Congress and called the "United States", in its territorial sense, is
a "legislative democracy" (or "majority rule" democracy)
which is governed by International Law, rather than the Common Law.
38. The U. S.
Supreme Court has ruled that this foreign nation has every right to legislate
for its "citizens" and to hold subject matter and in
personam jurisdiction, both within (inside) and without (outside) its territorial boundaries, when legislative
acts call for such effects (Cook v. Tait supra).
39. As a foreign nation under International law,
which is derived from Roman Civil Law (see Kent's Commentaries on American
Law, Lecture 1), it is perfectly legal for this nation to consider its
people as "subjects" rather than as individual Sovereigns. The protections of the State and the Federal
Constitutions do not apply to these "subjects" unless there is
specific statutory legislation granting specific protections (e.g., The Civil Rights Act). The guarantees of the Constitution extend to
the "United States" (i.e.,
the federal zone) only as Congress has made those guarantees applicable (Hooven
supra).
40. California is a Republic. How does this International Law come into
play in the California Republic? The
answer to this question is presented in the following section.
41. Because only "white" people could
hold primary Common Law State Citizenship under the Constitution,
Congress created a different class of "citizen" and then
legislated rights, privileges and immunities which were intended to be mirror
images of the Rights, Privileges and Immunities enjoyed by the Common Law Citizens
of the several States.
42. Unfortunately, the nation-state of the
"United States" (District of Columbia) is a democracy and not a
Republic. It is governed basically
under authority of International Law, rather than the Common Law, and its
people hold citizenship by "privilege" rather than by
"Right".
43. Certain power-mad individuals, commonly known
today as the Directors of the Federal Reserve Board and the twelve (12) major
international banking families, have used the so‑called 14th Amendment to
commit "legal genocide" upon the class of Common Law Citizens
known as the Citizens of the several States. This has been accomplished by the application of Social Security
through fraud, deception and non-disclosure of material facts, for the purpose
of reducing the Union of States to a people who are once again enslaved by
puppet masters, in order to gather revenue for the profit of international
banks and their owners.
44. It is a fact so well known and understood that
it is indisputable, that "any privilege granted by government is
regulatable, taxable and subject to any restrictions imposed by the legislative
acts of its governing body", including alteration and even revocation by
that governing body.
45. If necessary to do so, the Accused
[DEFENDANT] will submit an offer of proof to show that the "Social
Security Act" is, in fact, a private act applying only to the territory of
the "United States", acting in its limited municipal capacity, and to
its statutory "citizens of the United States", under the so‑called
14th Amendment. Yet, this Act has been
advertised and promoted throughout the several States of the Union as being
"mandatory upon the public in general", rather than a
"private" act.
46. The effect in law is that, when Common Law Citizens
of the several States apply for and receive Social Security Numbers, they
voluntarily surrender their primary Common Law Citizenship of a State
and exchange it for that of a statutory "citizen of the United
States". It is most interesting
that any State has the power to "naturalize" a non-Citizen, but today
everyone is naturalized as "citizens of the United States"
under purview of the so-called 14th Amendment.
The long-term effect of this procedure is that the Common Law white
State Citizens are an endangered species, on the verge of extinction,
and only the "subject class citizens" will survive to be ruled
at the whim and passion of a jurisdiction which was not intended by our
Founding Fathers or the Framers of the original U.S. Constitution.
JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT
47. Section 1 of the so-called 14th Amendment has
had a far‑reaching effect upon the several States of this Union, because
Congress mandated that it would protect its new statutory "citizens"
and that each of the States would also guarantee to protect these special
statutory "citizens".
48. This Nation was founded upon the fundamental
principles of the Common Law and self-government, with limited actual
government. In contrast, the
"subjects" of the "United States" are considered to be
incapable of self-government and in need of protection and regulation by those
in authority.
49. The majority of statute law is civil and
regulatory in nature, even when sanctions of a criminal nature are attached for
alleged violations.
50. Among the rights secured by the Common Law in
the Constitution in "criminal" cases are the right to know the
"nature and cause" of an accusation, the right to confront an
accuser, and the right to have both substantive and procedural due process.
51. It is a fact that the District Court, in
Internal Revenue cases, DOES NOT disclose the nature and cause of the
accusation, does not afford "substantive" due process, and rarely
produces a "corpus delicti"
to prove damage or an injured party.
52. The final proof is that the rights given to
an accused in an Internal Revenue case are "civil rights", rather
than Constitutional Rights. The
District Court can hear a Constitutional question, but it cannot rule upon the
merits of the question, because the Constitution does not apply to regulatory
statutes. They are set in place to
regulate and protect the statutory "citizens of the United
States" who cannot exercise, and are not given, the right of individual
self‑government.
53. The Federal Constitution mandates that
"counsel" be present at all phases of the proceedings. In contrast, District Court often conducts
arraignment proceedings without either
counsel for the defense or counsel
for the prosecution being present.
54. This Court is proceeding under a jurisdiction
which is known to the Constitution, but which is foreign to the intent of the
Constitution, unless applied to those individuals who do not have Common Law
access by "Right" to the protection of the State and Federal
Constitutions.
55. Whether this jurisdiction be named
International Law, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Legislative Equity, Statutory Law or
any other name, it is abusive and destructive of the Common Law Rights of the Citizens
of the several States. The Constitutions of the California Republic and the
United States of America mandate that these rights be guaranteed and protected
by all agencies of government. This is
the supreme Law of our Land.
56. The limit of police power and legislative
authority is reached when a statutory "law" derogates or destroys
Rights which are protected by the Constitution and which belong to the Common
Law Citizens of the several States who can claim these Rights.
57. [DEFENDANT] is a white, male Common Law Citizen
of the Sovereign California Republic.
This declaration of status is made openly and notoriously on the record
of these proceedings.
58. As an individual whose primary Common Law Citizenship
is of the California Republic, [DEFENDANT] claims all the Rights, Privileges
and Immunities afforded and protected by the Constitutions of the California
Republic (1849) and of the United States of America (1787), as lawfully
amended.
59. [DEFENDANT] has never, to the best of his knowledge
and belief, knowingly, intentionally and
voluntarily surrendered his original status as a Common Law Citizen of
the several States, to become a so-called 14th Amendment Federal citizen
who is subject to the jurisdiction of the "United States".
60. This Court is proceeding in a legislative
jurisdiction which allows a "civil" statute to be used as evidence of
the Law in a "criminal proceeding", and affords only "civil
rights", "procedural due process" and the right to be heard on
the facts evidenced in the statute, rather than the Law and the facts.
61. It is now incumbent upon the Court to seat on
the Law side of its jurisdiction and to order the plaintiff to bring forth an
offer of proof that the Accused [DEFENDANT] can be subjected to a jurisdiction
which uses civil statutes as evidence of the fundamental Law in criminal cases,
which refuses to afford all Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and available
to the Accused in criminal matters, and which practices procedural due process
to the exclusion of substantive due process, wherein only the "facts"
and not the "facts and Law" are at issue.
62. Should the prosecution fail to bring forth
proof that the Accused [DEFENDANT] has surrendered his original status as a
Common Law "California State Citizen" for one that is
essentially in "legislative/regulatory equity", then this Court has
no alternative but to dismiss this matter of its own motion in the interests of
justice, for lack of jurisdiction.
Dated , 199__
Respectfully
Submitted
Citizen of the California Republic
In Propria Persona, Sui Juris
I,
[DEFENDANT], under penalties of perjury, declare that I am a California Citizen,
domiciled in the California Republic, and a Citizen of the several
States united by and under the Constitution of the United States of America
(see 4:2:1). I am not a "citizen
of the United States" (District of Columbia) nor a subject of Congress
under the so-called 14th Amendment, nor a "resident" in the State of
California who seeks, or who is otherwise under, the protection of the
so-called 14th Amendment.
It is hereby
certified that service of this notice has been made on the Plaintiffs and other
interested parties by personal service or by mailing one copy each thereof, on
this ________ day of __________________, 1994, in a sealed envelope, with
postage prepaid, properly addressed to them as follows:
The Solicitor
General
Department of
Justice
Washington,
District of Columbia
Postal Zone
20530/tdc
[others as listed
here]
Dated , 199__