William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Gadsden, Alabama state
(non-domestic zip code exempt)

In Propria Persona

All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice



                         MIDDLE DIVISION

STATE OF ALABAMA [sic]       )  Case No. #CV-97-H-0022-M
                             )  16th Cir. Case #CC-95-1083-DWS
          Plaintiff [sic]    )
     v.                      )  VERIFIED STATEMENT
                             )  IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO
                             )  AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE:
          Defendant [sic]    )  28 U.S.C. 1746(1), 1861, 1865;
                             )  F.R.Evid. Rules 201(d), 301, 302;
_____________________________)  Full Faith and Credit Clause

COMES NOW  William Michael,  Kemp, Sui  Juris, Citizen of Alabama

state, expressly  not a  citizen of  the United  States ("federal

citizen"),  and   Defendant  in   the   above   entitled   action

(hereinafter "Defendant"), to record this, His Verified Statement

in Support  of Challenge  to Grand  Jury Selection Policy and its

federal statute.   "We  are no  longer subjects of a government."

See "The  Meaning of American Citizenship" by the Commissioner of

Immigration and Naturalization infra and EXHIBIT "A" attached.

     The Undersigned  hereby verifies,  under penalty of perjury,

under the  laws of  the United  States of  America,  without  the

"United  States,"  that  the  following  Statement  is  true  and

correct, to  the best  of My  current information, knowledge, and

belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1):

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 1 of 36

                           Chapter 11:

     The issue  of sovereignty as it relates to jurisdiction is a
major key  to understanding  our system  of government  under the
Constitution.     In  the   most  common   sense  of   the  word,
"sovereignty" is  autonomy, freedom  from external  control.  The
sovereignty of  any government  usually extends  up to,  but  not
beyond, the  borders of  its  jurisdiction.    This  jurisdiction
defines a  specific  territorial  boundary  which  separates  the
"external" from  the "internal", the "within" from the "without".
It may  also define  a specific  function, or  set of  functions,
which a  government may  lawfully  perform  within  a  particular
territorial boundary.   Black's  Law Dictionary,  Sixth  Edition,
defines sovereignty to mean:

     ... [T]he  international independence  of a  state, combined
     with the  right and power of regulating its internal affairs
     without foreign dictation.

On a  similar theme,  Black's defines  "sovereign states"  to  be
those which are not under the control of any foreign power:

     No  foreign   power  or  law  can  have  control  except  by
     convention.   This power  of independent  action in external
     and internal relations constitutes complete sovereignty.

     It is a well established principle of law that the 50 States
are "foreign"  with respect  to each  other, just  as the federal
zone is  "foreign" with  respect to each of them (In re Merriam's
Estate, 36  NE 505  (1894)).   The status of being foreign is the
same as  "belonging to"  or being  "attached to" another state or
another jurisdiction.   The  proper legal distinction between the
terms  "foreign"   and  "domestic"   is  best   seen  in  Black's
definitions of foreign and domestic corporations, as follows:

     Foreign corporation.   A  corporation doing  business in one
     state though chartered or incorporated in another state is a
     foreign corporation  as to the first state, and, as such, is
     required to  consent to  certain conditions and restrictions
     in order to do business in such first state.

     Domestic corporation.   When  a corporation is organized and
     chartered in a particular state, it is considered a domestic
     corporation of that state.

     The federal  zone is  an area  over which Congress exercises
exclusive legislative  jurisdiction.   It is  the area over which
the federal  government exercises  its sovereignty.   Despite its
obvious importance,  the subject of federal jurisdiction had been
almost entirely  ignored outside  the courts until the year 1954.
In that  year, a  detailed  study  of  federal  jurisdiction  was
undertaken.   The occasion  for the  study arose  from  a  school
playground, of  all places.   The  children of  federal employees
residing on  the grounds  of a  Veterans' Administration hospital
were not  allowed to  attend public schools in the town where the

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 2 of 36

hospital was  located.   An administrative  decision against  the
children was  affirmed by  local courts,  and finally affirmed by
the State  supreme court.  The residents of the area on which the
hospital was  located were  not "residents"  of the  State, since
"exclusive legislative  jurisdiction" over  this  area  had  been
ceded by the State to the federal government.

     A  committee  was  assembled  by  Attorney  General  Herbert
Brownell, Jr.  Their detailed study was reported in a publication
entitled Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States, April
1956 (Volume  I) and  June 1957  (Volume II).    The  committee's
report demonstrates,  beyond any doubt, that the sovereign States
and their  laws  are  outside  the  legislative  and  territorial
jurisdiction of the United States** federal government.  They are
totally outside  the federal  zone.   A plethora  of evidence  is
found in  the myriad of cited court cases (700+) which prove that
the  United   States**  cannot   exercise  exclusive  legislative
jurisdiction outside  territories or  places purchased  from,  or
ceded by,  the 50 States of the Union.  Attorney General Brownell
described the committee's report as an "exhaustive and analytical
exposition of  the law  in this  hitherto little explored field".
In his  letter of  transmittal to President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Brownell summarized the two volumes as follows:

     Together, the  two parts  of this Committee's report and the
     full implementation  of its  recommendations will  provide a
     basis for reversing in many areas the swing of "the pendulum
     of power * * * from our states to the central government" to
     which you  referred in  your address  to the  Conference  of
     State Governors on June 25, 1957.

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                  [Letter of Transmittal, page V, emphasis added]

     Once a  State is  admitted into  the  Union,  its  sovereign
jurisdiction is  firmly established  over a predefined territory.
The  federal  government  is  thereby  prevented  from  acquiring
legislative jurisdiction, by means of unilateral action, over any
area within the exterior boundaries of this predefined territory.
State assent is necessary to transfer jurisdiction to Congress:

     The Federal  Government cannot,  by unilateral action on its
     part, acquire  legislative jurisdiction over any area within
     the exterior  boundaries of  a State.  Article 1, Section 8,
     Clause 17,  of the  Constitution, provides  that legislative
     jurisdiction may  be transferred  pursuant to its terms only
     with the consent of the legislature of the State in which is
     located the area subject to the jurisdictional transfer.

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                             [Volume II, page 46, emphasis added]

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 3 of 36

     Under Article  1, Section  8, Clause 17 of the Constitution,
States of  the Union  have enacted  statutes  consenting  to  the
federal acquisition  of any  land, or of specific tracts of land,
within those   States.  Secondly, the federal government has also
made  "reservations"   of  jurisdiction  over  certain  areas  in
connection with the admission of a State into the Union.  A third
means for transfer of legislative jurisdiction has also come into
considerable use  over time, namely, a general or special statute
whereby  a   State  makes   a  cession   of  specific  functional
jurisdiction  to  the  federal  government.    Nevertheless,  the
Committee report  explained that  "... the  characteristics of  a
legislative jurisdiction  status are  the same no matter by which
of the  three means  the Federal Government acquired such status"
[Volume II,  page 3].   There  is simply  no federal  legislative
jurisdiction without  consent by  a State, cession by a State, or
reservation by the federal government:

     It scarcely  needs to  be said  that unless there has been a
     transfer of  jurisdiction (1)  pursuant to  clause 17  by  a
     Federal acquisition  of land  with State  consent, or (2) by
     cession from  the State to the Federal Government, or unless
     the Federal  Government has  reserved jurisdiction  upon the
     admission of  the State, the Federal Government possesses no
     legislative jurisdiction  over any area within a State, such
     jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the State ....

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                             [Volume II, page 45, emphasis added]

     The areas  which the  50 States  have properly  ceded to the
federal government are called federal "enclaves":

     By this  means some  thousands of  areas have become Federal
     islands,  sometimes  called  "enclaves,"  in  many  respects
     foreign to  the States  in which  they  are  situated.    In
     general, not  State but Federal law is applicable in an area
     under the  exclusive legislative  jurisdiction of the United
     States**,  for   enforcement  not   by  State   but  Federal
     authorities, and  in many  instances not  in  State  but  in
     Federal courts.

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                              [Volume II, page 4, emphasis added]

These federal enclaves are considered foreign with respect to the
States which  surround them, just as the 50 States are considered
foreign with  respect to  each other  and to  the  federal  zone:
"...[T]he several  states of the Union are to be considered as in
this respect foreign to each other ...."  Hanley v. Donoghue, 116
U.S. 1  (1885).   Once a  State surrenders its sovereignty over a
specific area  of land,  it is  powerless over  that land;  it is
without authority;  it cannot  recapture any  of its  transferred
jurisdiction by unilateral action, just as the federal government
cannot acquire  jurisdiction over  State area  by its  unilateral
action.   The State  has transferred its sovereign authority to a
foreign power:

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 4 of 36

     Once a  State has,  by one  means  or  another,  transferred
     jurisdiction to  the United  States**,  it  is,  of  course,
     powerless to  control many  of the  consequences;    without
     jurisdiction, it  is without the authority to deal with many
     of the  problems, and having transferred jurisdiction to the
     United States**,  it cannot  unilaterally capture any of the
     transferred jurisdiction.
              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                              [Volume II, page 7, emphasis added]

     Once sovereignty  has been  relinquished, a  State no longer
has the  authority to  enforce criminal  laws in  areas under the
exclusive jurisdiction  of the  United States**.  Privately owned
property in  such areas  is beyond  the taxing  authority of  the
State.  Residents of such areas are not "residents" of the State,
and hence  are not subject to the obligations of residents of the
State, and are not entitled to any of the benefits and privileges
conferred by  the State upon its residents.  Residents of federal
enclaves usually cannot vote, serve on juries, or run for office.
They do  not, as  matter of  right, have access to State schools,
hospitals, mental institutions, or similar establishments.

     The acquisition  of exclusive  jurisdiction by  the  Federal
Government renders  unavailable to  the residents of the affected
areas the  benefits of  the laws  and judicial and administrative
processes of the State relating to adoption, the probate of wills
and administration  of estates,  divorce, and many other matters.
Police, fire-fighting,  notaries, coroners,  and similar services
performed by,  or under,  the authority  of a State may result in
legal sanction  within a  federal enclave.   The "old" State laws
which apply  are only those which are consistent with the laws of
the "new" sovereign authority, using the following principle from
international law:

     The vacuum which would exist because of the absence of State
     law or  Federal legislation with respect to civil matters in
     areas under  Federal exclusive  legislative jurisdiction has
     been partially  filled by  the courts,  through extension to
     these areas  of a rule of international law that[,] when one
     sovereign takes over territory of another[,] the laws of the
     original sovereign  in effect  at the  time of the taking[,]
     which are  not inconsistent with the laws or policies of the
     second[,] continue  in effect,  as laws  of  the  succeeding
     sovereign, until changed by that sovereign.
              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                    [Volume II, page 6, commas added for clarity]
                                                 [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 5 of 36

     It is clear, then, that only one "state" can be sovereign at
any given  moment in  time, whether that "state" be one of the 50
Union States,  or the  federal government of the United States**.
Before ceding  a tract  of land to Congress, a State of the Union
exercises its  sovereign  authority  over  any  land  within  its

     Save only  as they  are subject  to the  prohibitions of the
     Constitution, or  as their  action in some measure conflicts
     with the powers delegated to the national government or with
     congressional legislation  enacted in  the exercise of those
     powers, the  governments of  the states are sovereign within
     their territorial  limits and  have  exclusive  jurisdiction
     over persons and property located therein.

                        [72 American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 4]
                                                 [emphasis added]

After a  State has  ceded  a  tract  of  land  to  Congress,  the
situation is  completely different.   The United States**, as the
"succeeding sovereign",  then exercises  its sovereign  authority
over that  land.  In this sense, sovereignty is indivisible, even
though the  Committee's report  documented numerous situations in
which  jurisdiction  was  actually  shared  between  the  federal
government and  one of  the 50  States.   Even in this situation,
however, sovereignty rests either in the State, or in the federal
government, but  never both.   Sovereignty  is the  authority  to
which there  is politically  no superior.   Outside  the  federal
zone, the  States of  the Union  remain sovereign, and their laws
are completely  outside the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of
the federal government of the United States**.

     This understanding  of the  separate sovereignties possessed
by each  of the  State and federal governments was not only valid
during the Eisenhower administration; it has been endorsed by the
U.S. Supreme  Court as  recently as 1985.  In that year, the high
Court examined the "dual sovereignty doctrine" when it ruled that
successive prosecutions  by two  States for the same conduct were
not barred  by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The "crucial  determination" turned  on whether State and federal
powers derive from separate and independent sources.  The Supreme
Court explained  that the  doctrine of  dual sovereignty has been
uniformly upheld by the courts:

     It has  been uniformly  held that  the States  are  separate
     sovereigns with  respect to  the Federal  Government because
     each State's  power to  prosecute derives  from its inherent
     sovereignty, preserved to it by the Tenth Amendment, and not
     from the  Federal Government.  Given the distinct sources of
     their powers  to try  a defendant,  the States  are no  less
     sovereign with  respect to  each other  than they  are  with
     respect to the Federal Government.

                    [Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 89-90 (1985)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 6 of 36

     Now, if  a State of the Union is sovereign, is it correct to
say that  the State  exercises an  authority to  which  there  is
absolutely no  superior?   No, this  is not  a correct statement.
There is  no other  organized  body  which  is  superior  to  the
organized body  which retains  sovereignty.  The  sovereignty  of
governments is  an authority  to  which  there  is  no  organized
superior, but  there is  absolutely a  superior  body,  and  that
superior body is the People of the United States*** of America:

     The words  "people of  the United States" and "citizens" are
     synonymous terms,  and mean  the  same  thing.    They  both
     describe the political body who, according to our republican
     institutions, form  the sovereignty,  and who hold the power
     and conduct  the government  through their  representatives.
     They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and
     every citizen  is one  of this  people,  and  a  constituent
     member of this sovereignty.

     [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856), emphasis added]

The source  of all  sovereignty in a constitutional Republic like
the 50  States, united  by and  under the  Constitution  for  the
United States  of America,  is the  People themselves.  Remember,
the States,  and  the  federal  government  acting  inside  those
States, are  both bound  by the  terms of a contract known as the
U.S. Constitution.   That Constitution is a contract of delegated
powers which  ultimately originate  in  the  sovereignty  of  the
Creator, who endowed creation, individual People like you and me,
with sovereignty  in that  Creator's image and likeness.  Nothing
stands between  us and  the Creator.   I  think it is fair to say
that the  Supreme Court  of the  United  States  was  never  more
eloquent when it described the source of sovereignty as follows:

     Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it
     is the  author and  source of law;  but in our system, while
     sovereign  powers   are  delegated   to  the   agencies   of
     government, sovereignty  itself remains  with the people, by
     whom and  for whom  all government exists and acts.  And the
     law is  the definition  and limitation  of  power.    It  is
     indeed,  quite  true,  that  there  must  always  be  lodged
     somewhere, and  in some  person or  body, the  authority  of
     final decision;   and  in many  cases of mere administration
     the responsibility  is purely political, no appeal except to
     the ultimate  tribunal of  the public  judgement,  exercised
     either in  the pressure  of  opinion  or  by  means  of  the
     suffrage.   But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and
     the  pursuit   of  happiness,   considered   as   individual
     possessions, are  secured by  those maxims of constitutional
     law which  are the monuments showing the victorious progress
     of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization
     under the reign  of just  and equal laws,  so that,  in  the
     famous language  of the  Massachusetts Bill  of Rights,  the
     government of  the commonwealth "may be a government of laws
     and not  of men."   For,  the very  idea that one man may be
     compelled to  hold his  life, or the means of living, or any
     material right  essential to  the enjoyment  of life, at the
     mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country
     where freedom  prevails, as  being the  essence  of  slavery
                   [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 7 of 36

     More recently,  the Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental
importance of US the People as the source of sovereignty, and the
subordinate status  which Congress  occupies in  relation to  the
sovereignty of  the People.   The following language is terse and
right on point:

     In the  United States***,  sovereignty resides in the people
     who act  through the organs established by the Constitution.
     [cites omitted]   The  Congress as  the  instrumentality  of
     sovereignty is  endowed with certain powers to be exerted on
     behalf of  the people  in the manner and with the effect the
     Constitution  ordains.    The  Congress  cannot  invoke  the
     sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus
               [Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     No discussion  of sovereignty  would be complete, therefore,
without considering  the sovereignty  that  resides  in  US,  the
People.  The Supreme Court has often identified the People as the
source of  sovereignty in  our  republican  form  of  government.
Indeed, the federal Constitution guarantees to every State in the
Union a "Republican Form" of government, in so many words:

     Section 4.  The United States shall guarantee to every State
     in this  Union a  Republican Form  of Government,  and shall
     protect each of them against Invasion; ....

               [United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]
                                                 [emphasis added]

What exactly  is a "Republican Form" of government?  It is one in
which the  powers of  sovereignty are  vested in  the People  and
exercised by  the People.  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
makes this very clear in its various definitions of "government":

     Republican government.   One  in   which   the   powers   of
     sovereignty are  vested in  the people  and are exercised by
     the people,  either  directly,  or  through  representatives
     chosen by  the people,  to whom  those powers  are specially
     delegated.   In re  Duncan, 139  U.S. 449,  11 S.Ct. 573, 35
     L.Ed. 219;   Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22
     L.Ed. 627.

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 8 of 36

The Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between the operation
of  governments   in  Europe,  and  government  in  these  United
States*** of America, as follows:

     In Europe,  the executive  is  almost  synonymous  with  the
     sovereign  power   of  a  State;    and  generally  includes
     legislative  and   judicial  authority.   ...  Such  is  the
     condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is
     too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both, and seldom
     by compact.    In  America,  however,  the  case  is  widely
     different.     Our  government   is  founded  upon  compact.
     Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.

                     [Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     The federal Constitution makes a careful distinction between
natural  born  Citizens  and  citizens  of  the  United  States**
(compare 2:1:5  with Section  1 of the so-called 14th Amendment).
One is  an unconditional  Sovereign  by  natural  birth,  who  is
endowed by  the Creator  with certain  unalienable rights;    the
other  has  been  granted  the  revocable  privileges  of  U.S.**
citizenship, endowed by the Congress of the United States**.  One
is a  Citizen, the  other is  a subject.  One is a Sovereign, the
other is  a subordinate.   One is a Citizen of our constitutional
Republic;  the other is a citizen of a legislative democracy (the
federal zone).    Notice  the  superior/subordinate  relationship
between these two statuses.  I am forever indebted to M. J. "Red"
Beckman, co-author  of The  Law That  Never Was with Bill Benson,
for clearly  illustrating the  important difference  between  the
two.   Red Beckman  has delivered many eloquent lectures based on
the profound simplicity of the following table:

          Chain of command and authority in a:

          Majority Rule            Constitutional
          Democracy                Republic

          X                        Creator
          Majority                 Individual
          Government               Constitution
          Public Servants          Government
          Case & Statute Law       Public Servants
          Corporations             Statute Law
          individual               Corporations

     In this  illustration, a  democracy ruled  by  the  majority
places the  individual at  the bottom,  and an unknown elite, Mr.
"X" at  the top.   The  majority (or  mob) elects a government to
hire public  "servants" who  write laws primarily for the benefit
of  corporations.     These  corporations  are  either  owned  or
controlled by  Mr. X,  a clique  of the ultra-wealthy who seek to
restore a  two-class "feudal"  society.  They exercise their vast
economic power so as to turn all of America into a "feudal zone".
The rights  of individuals  occupy the  lowest priority  in  this
chain of  command.   Those rights often vanish over time, because
democracies eventually  self-destruct.   The enforcement  of laws
within this  scheme is  the job  of administrative tribunals, who
specialize in  holding individuals to the letter of all rules and
regulations of  the corporate  state, no matter how arbitrary and
with little if any regard for fundamental human rights:

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 9 of 36

     A democracy  that  recognizes  only  manmade  laws  perforce
     obliterates the concept of Liberty as a divine right.

           [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 146]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     In the  constitutional  Republic,  however,  the  rights  of
individuals are  supreme.  Individuals delegate their sovereignty
to a  written contract,  called a  constitution,  which  empowers
government to  hire public  servants to  write laws primarily for
the benefit  of individuals.   The corporations occupy the lowest
priority in this chain of command, since their primary objectives
are to  maximize the  enjoyment  of  individual  rights,  and  to
facilitate the  fulfillment of  individual responsibilities.  The
enforcement of  laws within  this scheme is the responsibility of
sovereign individuals,  who exercise their power in three arenas:
the voting  booth, the trial jury, and the grand jury.  Without a
jury verdict of "guilty", for example, no law can be enforced and
no penalty  exacted.   The behavior of public servants is tightly
restrained  by   contractual  terms,  as  found  in  the  written
Constitution.   Statutes and  case law  are created  primarily to
limit and define the scope and extent of public servant power.   

     Sovereign individuals  are subject  only to  a  Common  Law,
whose primary  purposes are  to  protect  and  defend  individual
rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private
person, from  violating the  rights of other individuals.  Within
this scheme, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations,
and the constitutional contract is such a creation.  To quote the
Supreme Court,  "No fiction  can make  a natural  born  subject."
Milvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808).  That is to say, no
fiction, be it a corporation, a statute law, or an administrative
regulation, can  mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who
is subject to his own creations.  Author and scholar Lori Jacques
has put it succinctly as follows:

     As each state is sovereign and not a territory of the United
     States**, the  meaning is  clear that state citizens are not
     subject  to  the  legislative  jurisdiction  of  the  United
     States**.     Furthermore,  there   is  not   the  slightest
     intimation in  the Constitution  which created  the  "United
     States" as  a political  entity that  the "United States" is
     sovereign over its creators.

            [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 32]
                                                 [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 10 of 36

     Accordingly, if  you choose  to investigate  the matter, you
will find  a very  large body  of legal  literature  which  cites
another fiction,  the so-called  14th Amendment,  from which  the
federal government  presumes to derive general authority to treat
everyone in America as subjects and not as Sovereigns:

     Section 1.   All  persons born  or naturalized in the United
     States**, and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are
     citizens of  the United  States** and  of the  State wherein
     they reside.

         [United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [sic]]
                                                 [emphasis added]

A careful reading of this amendment reveals an important subtlety
which is lost on many people who read it for the first time.  The
citizens it  defines are second class citizens because the "c" is
lower-case, even  in the  case of  the State citizens it defines.
Note how  the amendment defines "citizens of the United States**"
and "citizens  of the  State wherein  they reside"!  It  is  just
uncanny how  the wording  of this amendment closely parallels the
Code of  Federal Regulations (CFR) which promulgates Section 1 of
the Internal  Revenue Code  (IRC).  Can it be that this amendment
had something  to do  with subjugation, by way of taxes and other
means?   Yes, it most certainly did.  Section 1 of the IRC is the
section which imposes income taxes.  The corresponding section of
the CFR defines who is a "citizen" as follows:

     Every person  born or naturalized in the United States** and
     subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

                                [26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added]

Notice the  use of  the term  "its jurisdiction".  This leaves no
doubt that  the "United  States**" is  a singular  entity in this
context.   In other words, it is the federal zone.  Do we dare to
speculate why  the so-called  14th Amendment  was written instead
with the  phrase "subject  to the jurisdiction thereof"?  Is this
another case of deliberate ambiguity?  You be the judge.

     Not only  did this  so-called "amendment"  fail  to  specify
which meaning  of the  term "United States" was being used;  like
the 16th  Amendment, it  also failed to be ratified, this time by
15  of   the  37  States  which  existed  in  1868.    The  House
Congressional  Record   for  June  13,  1967,  contains  all  the
documentation you need to prove that the so-called 14th Amendment
was never  ratified into  law (see  page 15641  et  seq.).    For
example, it  itemizes all States which voted against the proposed
amendment, and  the precise dates when their Legislatures did so.
"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,  941
(1975).   The Utah  Supreme Court  has detailed  the shocking and
sordid history  of the 14th Amendment's "adoption" in the case of
Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968).

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 11 of 36

     A great  deal of  written material on the 14th Amendment has
been assembled  into computer  files by  Richard McDonald,  whose
mailing address is 585-D Box Canyon Road, Canoga Park, California
Republic (not  "CA").   He requests that ZIP codes not be used on
his incoming  mail (use  "ZIP code exempt (DMM 122.32)" instead).
Richard McDonald  has done  a  mountain  of  legal  research  and
writing  on  the  origins  and  effects  of  the  so-called  14th
Amendment.   He  documents  how  key  court  decisions  like  the
Slaughter House Cases, among many others, all found that there is
a clear distinction between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of
the United  States** .  A State Citizen is a Sovereign, whereas a
citizen of  the United  States** is  a subject  of Congress.  The
exercise of  federal citizenship  is a  statutory privilege which
can be  taxed with excises.  The exercise of State Citizenship is
a  Common   Law  Right  which  simply  cannot  be  taxed  because
governments cannot tax the exercise of a right, ever.

     The case  of U.S.  v. Cruikshank  is famous,  not  only  for
confirming this  distinction between  State Citizens  and  U.S.**
citizens, but  also for  establishing a key precedent in the area
of due process. This precedent underlies the "void for vagueness"
doctrine which  can and should be applied to nullify the IRC.  On
the issue of citizenship, the Cruikshank court ruled as follows:

     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 who owe it allegiance, and
     whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect.  The
     same 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.  Slaughter-House Cases

                [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

The leading authorities for this pivotal distinction are, indeed,
a series  of U.S.  Supreme Court decisions known as the Slaughter
House Cases,  which examined  the  so-called  14th  Amendment  in
depth.  An exemplary paragraph from these cases is the following:

     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, 83 U.S. 36, 16 Wall. 36]
                            [21 L.Ed. 394 (1873), emphasis added]

A similar authority is found in the case of K. Tashiro v. Jordan,
decided by  the Supreme  Court of  the State of California almost
fifty years  later.   Notice, in  particular, how  the California
Supreme Court again cites the Slaughter House Cases:

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 12 of 36

     That there  is a  citizenship of  the United  States** and a
     citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of
     one are not the same as the other is well established by the
     decisions of  the courts of this country.  The leading cases
     upon the  subjects are those decided by the Supreme Court of
     the United  States and  reported in  16 Wall.  36, 21 L. Ed.
     394, and known as the Slaughter House Cases.

                   [K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927)]
                                   [affirmed 278 U.S. 123 (1928)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     The Slaughter  House Cases  are quite important to the issue
of citizenship, but the pivotal case on the subject is the famous
Dred Scott decision, decided in 1856, prior to the Civil War.  In
this case,  the U.S.  Supreme Court  wrote  one  of  the  longest
decisions in  the entire  history of  American jurisprudence.  In
arriving  at  their  understanding  of  the  precise  meaning  of
Citizenship, as  understood by  the Framers  of the Constitution,
the high  Court left  no  stone  unturned  in  their  search  for
relevant law:

     We have  the language of the Declaration of Independence and
     of the  Articles of  Confederation, in addition to the plain
     words of  the Constitution  itself:  we have the legislation
     of the  different States,  before, about the time, and since
     the Constitution  was adopted;   we  have the legislation of
     Congress, from  the time of its adoption to a recent period;
     and we have the constant and uniform action of the Executive
     Department, all concurring together, and leading to the same
     result.   And if anything in relation to the construction of
     the Constitution  can be  regarded as  settled, it  is  that
     which we  now give  to  the  word  "citizen"  and  the  word
                     [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     In the  fundamental law,  the notion  of a  "citizen of  the
United States"  simply did  not exist  before the 14th Amendment;
at best,  this  notion  is  a  fiction  within  a  fiction.    In
discussing the  power of the States to naturalize, the California
State Supreme  Court put  it rather  bluntly when  it ruled  that
there was no such thing as a "citizen of the United States":

     A citizen  of any one of the States of the union, is held to
     be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States,  although
     technically and  abstractly there  is no  such  thing.    To
     conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
     of some  one of  the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
     and inconsistent  with the  proper construction  and  common
     understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
     which must  be deduced  from its  various other  provisions.
     The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
     of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of the respective
                            [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

This decision has never been overturned!

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 13 of 36

     What is  the proper construction and common understanding of
the term  "Citizen of  the United States" as used in the original
Constitution, before  the so-called  14th Amendment?   This is an
important question,  because this status is still a qualification
for the  offices of  Senator, Representative  and President.   No
Person can  be a  Representative unless  he has been a Citizen of
the United  States for  seven years  (1:2:2);  no Person can be a
Senator unless  he has  been a  Citizen of  the United States for
nine years  (1:3:3);   no Person  can be President unless he is a
natural born  Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States (2:1:5).
If these requirements had been literally obeyed, there could have
been no  elections for  Representatives to  Congress for at least
seven years  after the  adoption of  the Constitution, and no one
would have  been eligible  as a  Senator for nine years after its
adoption.   Author John  S. Wise, in a rare book now available on
Richard  McDonald's   electronic  bulletin  board  system  (BBS),
explains away the problem very simply as follows:

     The language  employed by  the convention  was less  careful
     than that  which had  been used  by Congress  in July of the
     same year,  in framing  the ordinance  for the government of
     the  Northwest   Territory.      Congress   had   made   the
     qualification rest  upon citizenship  of "one  of the United
     States***,"  and   this  is  doubtless  the  intent  of  the
     convention which framed the Constitution, for it cannot have
     meant anything else.
                                  [Studies in Constitutional Law:
                             [A Treatise on American Citizenship]
                    [by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

This quote from the Northwest Ordinance is faithful to the letter
and to the spirit of that law.  In describing the eligibility for
"representatives" to  serve  in  the  general  assembly  for  the
Northwest Territory,  the critical  passage from  that  Ordinance
reads as follows:

     ... Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act
     as a  representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of
     one of  the United  States*** three years, and be a resident
     in the  district, or  unless he  shall have  resided in  the
     district three years; ....

                  [Northwest Ordinance, Section 9, July 13, 1787]
                       [The Confederate Congress, emphasis added]

     Without citing the case as such, the words of author John S.
Wise sound a close, if not identical parallel to the argument for
the Respondent  filed in  the case  of People  v. De  La  Guerra,
decided by  the California  Supreme Court in 1870.  The following
long passage  elaborates the  true meaning  of the Constitutional
qualifications for President and Representative:

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 14 of 36

     As  it   was  the   adoption  of  the  Constitution  by  the
     Conventions of  nine States that established and created the
     United States***,  it is  obvious there  could not then have
     existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the
     United  States***,   or  who   possessed  the   Presidential
     qualifications of  being thirty-five years of age, a natural
     born citizen,  and fourteen  years a  resident of the United
     States***.   The United States*** in these provisions, means
     the States  united.  To be twenty-five years of age, and for
     seven years  to have  been a  citizen of  one of  the States
     which  ratifies the Constitution,  is the qualification of a
     representative.   To be a natural born citizen of one of the
     States which  shall ratify  the Constitution,  or  to  be  a
     citizen  of   one  of  said  States  at  the  time  of  such
     ratification, and  to have  attained the  age of thirty-five
     years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one
     of the  said States,  are the  Presidential  qualifications,
     according to the true meaning of the Constitution.

                [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

Indeed, this was the same exact understanding that was reached by
the U.S.  Supreme Court  in the  Dred Scott decision.  There, the
high Court clearly reinforced the sovereign status of Citizens of
the several States.  The sovereigns are the Union State Citizens,
i.e. the Citizens of the States United:

     It is true, every person, and every class and description of
     persons, who  were at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the
     Constitution recognized  as citizens  in the several States,
     became also  citizens of  this new political body;  but none
     other;   it was  formed by  them,   and for  them and  their
     posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and
     privileges  guarantied   [sic]  to   citizens  of  this  new
     sovereignty were  intended to  embrace those  only who  were
     then members of the several state communities, or who should
     afterwards, by  birthright  or  otherwise,  become  members,
     according to  the provisions  of the  Constitution  and  the
     principles on which it was founded.

                [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     Thus, the  phrase "Citizen of the United States" as found in
the original  Constitution is synonymous with the phrase "Citizen
of one  of the  United States***",  i.e., a  Union State Citizen.
This simple  explanation will help to cut through the mountain of
propaganda and deception which have been foisted on all Americans
by government bureaucrats and their high-paid lawyers.  With this
understanding firmly  in place,  it is very revealing to discover
that many  reprints of  the Constitution now utilize a lower-case
"c" in  the sections  which describe  the qualifications  for the
offices of  Senator,  Representative  and  President.    This  is
definitely wrong, and it is probably deliberate, so as to confuse
everyone  into  equating  Citizens  of  the  United  States  with
citizens of  the United  States, courtesy  of the  so-called 14th
Amendment.   There is  a very  big  difference  between  the  two
statuses, not  the least  of which is the big difference in their
respective liabilities for the income tax.

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 15 of 36

     Moreover, it  is quite clear that one may be a State Citizen
without also  being a  "citizen of the United States", whether or
not the  14th Amendment  was properly ratified!  According to the
Louisiana Supreme  Court,  the  highest  exercise  of  a  State's
sovereignty is the right to declare who are its own Citizens:

     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
                               [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
                                [6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]

In a  book to which this writer has returned time and time again,
author Alan  Stang faithfully  recites some of the other relevant
court authorities,  all of  which ultimately  trace back  to  the
Slaughter House Cases and the Dred Scott decision:

     Indeed, just  as one may be a "citizen of the United States"
     and not  a citizen  of a  State;  so one apparently may be a
     citizen of  a State  but not  of the United States.  On July
     21, 1966, the Court of Appeal of Maryland ruled in Crosse v.
     Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431;  a headnote
     in which  tells us:   "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 ...."  At  page  434,
     Judge Oppenheimer  cites a  Wisconsin ruling  in  which  the
     court said  this:   "Under our complex system of government,
     there may  be a  citizen of a state, who is not a citizen of
     the United States in the full sense of the term ...."

                          [Tax Scam, 1988 edition, pages 138-139]
                                                 [emphasis added]

Conversely, there  may be a citizen of the United States** who is
not a Citizen of any of the 50 States.  In People v. De La Guerra
quoted above,  the published  decision of  the California Supreme
Court clearly maintained this crucial distinction between the two
classes of  citizenship, and  did so  only two  years  after  the
alleged ratification of the so-called 14th Amendment:

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 16 of 36

     I have  no doubt  that those  born in the Territories, or in
     the District  of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle
     them to  the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United
     States**  in   the  Constitution,   and  to  the  shield  of
     nationality abroad;   but  it is  evident that they have not
     the political  rights which  are vested  in citizens  of the
     States.  They are not constituents of any community in which
     is vested any sovereign power of government.  Their position
     partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens.
     They are  subject to  the laws  of the  United States**, but
     have no  voice in  its management.   If  they are allowed to
     make laws,  the validity  of these  laws is derived from the
     sanction of  a Government in which they are not represented.
     Mere citizenship  they may have, but the political rights of
     citizens they  cannot enjoy  until they are organized into a
     State, and admitted into the Union.

                 [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870]
                                                 [emphasis added]

Using language that was much more succinct, author Luella Gettys,
Ph.D. and  "Sometime Carnegie Fellow in International Law" at the
University of Chicago, explained it quite nicely this way:

     ... [A]s  long  as  the  territories  are  not  admitted  to
     statehood no state citizenship therein could exist.

                    [The Law of Citizenship in the United States]
                    [Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1934, p. 7]

     This clear  distinction between  the Union  States  and  the
territories is  endorsed officially  by the  U.S. Supreme  Court.
Using language  very similar  to that  of the  California Supreme
Court in  the De  La Guerra  case, the  high Court  explained the
distinction this  way in the year 1885, seventeen years after the
adoption of the so-called 14th amendment:

     The people  of the  United States***, as sovereign owners of
     the national  territories, have  supreme power over them and
     their inhabitants.  ... The personal and civil rights of the
     inhabitants of  the territories  are secured  to them, as to
     other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty,
     which restrain  all the  agencies of  government, state  and
     national;   their political rights are franchises which they
     hold as  privileges in  the legislative  discretion  of  the
     congress of  the United  States**.   This doctrine was fully
     and forcibly  declared by  the chief justice, delivering the
     opinion of  the court in National Bank v. County of Yankton,
     101 U.S. 129.
                           [Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)]
                            [italics in original, emphasis added]

The  political   rights  of   the  federal  zone's  citizens  are
"franchises" which they hold as "privileges" at the discretion of
the Congress  of the  United  States**.    Indeed,  the  doctrine
declared earlier  in the  National Bank case leaves no doubt that
Congress is the municipal authority for the territories:

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 17 of 36

     All territory  within the jurisdiction of the United States*
     not included  in any State must, necessarily, be governed by
     or under the authority of Congress.  The Territories are but
     political subdivisions  of  the  outlying  dominion  of  the
     United States**.   They  bear much  the same relation to the
     General Government  that counties  do  to  the  States,  and
     Congress may  legislate for  them as  States  do  for  their
     respective municipal  organizations.   The organic  law of a
     Territory  takes   the  place  of  a  constitution,  as  the
     fundamental law  of the  local government.  It is obligatory
     on and  binds the  territorial authorities;  but Congress is
     supreme and,  for the  purposes of  this department  of  its
     governmental authority,  has all the powers of the People of
     the United  States***, except such as have been expressly or
     by  implication   reserved  in   the  prohibitions   of  the

            [First National Bank v. Yankton, 101 U.S. 129 (1880)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     This knowledge  can be  extremely valuable.   In  one of the
brilliant text  files on  his electronic  bulletin  board  system
(BBS), Richard McDonald utilized his voluminous research into the
so-called 14th  Amendment and  related constitutional law when he
made the  following pleading in opposition to a traffic citation,
of all things, in Los Angeles county municipal court:

     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, a  juristic person or a franchised person who can
     be compelled  to perform  to the  regulatory  Vehicle  Codes
     which are  civil in  nature, and  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
           [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald's electronic BBS]
           [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

     You might  be wondering  why someone  would go  to  so  much
trouble to  oppose a traffic citation.  Why not just pay the fine
and get  on with  your life?  The answer lies, once again, in the
fundamental and supreme Law of our Land, the Constitution for the
United States  of America.  Sovereign State Citizens have learned
to assert  their fundamental rights, because rights belong to the
belligerent claimant  in person.   The  Constitution is  the last
bastion of  the Common  Law in  our country.  Were it not for the
Constitution, the  Common Law would have been history a long time
ago.     The  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  is  directly
influenced by  the fact  that its  provisions are  framed in  the
language of the English common law:

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 18 of 36

     There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that
     there is  no national common law.  The interpretation of the
     constitution of  the United States is necessarily influenced
     by the  fact that  its provisions are framed in the language
     of the  English common  law, and are to be read in the light
     of its history.

        [United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 891, 893 (1898)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     Under the Common Law, we are endowed by our Creator with the
right to  travel.   "Driving", on  the other  hand, is defined in
State Vehicle  Codes to  mean the  act of chauffeuring passengers
for hire.   "Passengers"  are those  who pay  a  "driver"  to  be
chauffeured.   Guests, on the other hand, are those who accompany
travelers without  paying for the transportation.  Driving, under
this definition,  is a  privilege for which a State can require a
license.  Similarly, if you are a citizen of the United States**,
you are  subject to  its jurisdiction, and a State government can
prove that  you are  obligated thereby to obey all administrative
statutes and  regulations to  the  letter  of  the  law.    These
regulations include, of course, the requirement that all subjects
apply and pay for licenses to use the State and federal highways,
even though the highways belong to the People.  The land on which
they were  built, and  the materials  and labor expended in their
construction, were  all paid  for with  taxes obtained  from  the
People.  Provided that you are not engaged in any "privileged" or
regulated activity,  you are  free to  travel anywhere  you  wish
within the  50 States.   Those  States are  real parties  to  the
Constitution and are therefore bound by all its terms.

     Another one  of your  Common Law  rights is the right to own
property free  and clear of any liens.  ("Unalienable" rights are
rights against which no lien can be established precisely because
they are  un-lien-able.)  You enjoy the right to own your vehicle
outright, without  any lawful  requirement that you "register" it
with  the   State  Department  of  Motor  Vehicles.    The  State
governments violated  your fundamental rights when they concealed
the legal  "interest" which  they obtained  in your  vehicle,  by
making it  appear as if you were required to register the vehicle
when you purchased it, as a condition of purchase. This is fraud.
If you  don't believe  me, then  try to obtain the manufacturer's
statement of  origin (MSO)  the next  time you  buy a  new car or
truck.   The implications  and ramifications  of  driving  around
without a  license, and/or  without registration,  are far beyond
the scope of this book.  Suffice it to say that effective methods
have already been developed to deal with law enforcement officers
and courts,  if and  when you  are  pulled  over  and  cited  for
traveling without  a license or tags.  Richard McDonald is second
to none  when it  comes to  preparing a successful defense to the
civil charges  that might  result.   A Sovereign  is someone  who
enjoys fundamental,  Common Law  rights, and owning property free
and clear is one of those fundamental rights.

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 19 of 36

     If you  have a  DOS-compatible personal computer and a 2400-
baud modem,  Richard McDonald  can provide  you with instructions
for accessing  his electronic bulletin board system (BBS).  There
is a mountain of information, and some of his computer files were
rather large  when he  began his  BBS.  Users were complaining of
long transmission times to "download" text files over phone lines
from his  BBS to their own personal computers.  So, McDonald used
a  fancy  text  "compression"  program  on  all  the  text  files
available on  his BBS.   As  a consequence,  BBS users must first
download a DOS program which "decompresses" the compressed files.
Once this  program is  running on your personal computer, you are
then free to download all other text files and to decompress them
at your  end.   For example,  the compressed  file  "14AMREC.ZIP"
contains the  documentation which  proves that the so-called 14th
Amendment was  never ratified.   If  you  have  any  problems  or
questions, Richard  McDonald is  a very patient and generous man.
And please  tell him  where you  read about  him and his computer
bulletin board (voice: 818-703-5037, BBS: 818-888-9882).

     As you  peruse through  McDonald's numerous court briefs and
other documents,  you will  encounter many  gems to be remembered
and shared  with your  family, friends  and associates.  His work
has confirmed  an attribute  of sovereignty  that is of paramount
importance.   Sovereignty  is  never  diminished  in  delegation.
Thus,  as   sovereign  individuals,   we  do   not  diminish  our
sovereignty  in  any  way  by  delegating  our  powers  to  State
governments, to  perform services  which are  difficult,  if  not
impossible for  us to  perform as individuals.  Similarly, States
do not  diminish their  sovereignty by  delegating powers  to the
federal government,  via the  Constitution.  As McDonald puts it,
powers delegated do not equate to powers surrendered:

     17.   Under the  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
     because the  "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.   This is  where the concept of a corpus delicti
     comes from to prove a "crime" or a civil damage.

           [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald's electronic BBS]
           [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

     Indeed, to  be a  Citizen of the United States*** of America
is to  be one  of the  Sovereign People, "a constituent member of
the sovereignty,  synonymous with  the people" [see 19 How. 404].
According to  the 1870  edition of  Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the
People  are  the  fountain  of  sovereignty.    It  is  extremely
revealing that  there is no definition of "United States" as such
in this dictionary.  However, there is an important discussion of
the  "United   States  of   America",  where  the  delegation  of
sovereignty clearly originates in the People and nowhere else:

     The great  men who  formed it  did not  undertake to solve a
     question that  in its  own nature  is  insoluble.    Between
     equals it  made neither  superior, but trusted to the mutual
     forbearance of both parties.  A larger confidence was placed
     in an  enlightened public  opinion as the final umpire.  The
     people parcelled  out the  rights of sovereignty between the
     states and  the United  States**, and  they have  a  natural
     right to  determine what  was given to one party and what to
     the other.   ...  It is a maxim consecrated in public law as
     well as  common sense  and the necessity of the case, that a
     sovereign is  answerable for his acts only to his God and to
     his own conscience.

                   [Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, 1870]
                            [defining "United States of America"]
                                                 [emphasis added]

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 20 of 36

     We don't need to reach far back into another century to find
proof that  the People are sovereign.  In a Department of Justice
manual revised  in the  1990 (Document No. M-230), the meaning of
American Citizenship was described with these eloquent and moving
words by  the Commissioner  of  Immigration  and  Naturalization:
"You are no longer a subject of a government!"

                  The Meaning of American Citizenship
             Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization

          Today you have become a citizen of the United States of
     America.   You are  no longer an Englishman, a Frenchman, an
     Italian, a Pole.  Neither are you a hyphenated-American -- a
     Polish-American, an  Italian-American.   You are no longer a
     subject of  a government.   Henceforth,  you are an integral
     part of  this Government  -- a  free man -- a Citizen of the
     United States of America.

          This citizenship,  which has been solemnly conferred on
     you, is a thing of the spirit -- not of the flesh.  When you
     took the  oath of  allegiance to  the  Constitution  of  the
     United  States,  you  claimed  for  yourself  the  God-given
     unalienable rights  which that sacred document sets forth as
     the natural right of all men.

          You have  made sacrifices  to reach  this desired goal.
     We, your  fellow citizens,  realize this,  and the warmth of
     our welcome  to you  is increased proportionately.  However,
     we would tincture it with friendly caution.

          As you  have learned during these years of preparation,
     this great  honor carries  with it  the duty to work for and
     make  secure  this  longed-for  and  eagerly-sought  status.
     Government under our Constitution makes American citizenship
     the highest  privilege and  at the  same time  the  greatest
     responsibility of any citizenship in the world.

          The important  rights that are now yours and the duties
     and  responsibilities   attendant  thereon   are  set  forth
     elsewhere in  this manual.  It is hoped that they will serve
     as a  constant reminder that only by continuing to study and
     learn about  your new country, its ideals, achievements, and
     goals, and  by everlastingly working at your citizenship can
     you enjoy  its fruits  and  assure  their  preservation  for
     generations to follow.

          May you  find in  this Nation  the fulfillment  of your
     dreams of  peace and  security, and  may America,  in  turn,
     never find you wanting in your new and proud role of Citizen
     of the United States.

                  [Basic Guide to Naturalization and Citizenship]
                         [Immigration and Naturalization Service]
                                     [U.S. Department of Justice]
                                       [page 265, emphasis added]

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 21 of 36

Executed on ___________________________

/s/ Mike Kemp
William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris
Citizen of Alabama state
all Rights Reserved without prejudice

Executed on January 17, 1997:

/s/ Paul Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and Counsel to Defendant
all Rights reserved without prejudice

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 22 of 36

                          EXHIBIT "A":

                "The Day Our Country Was Stolen:"
                 "How the 14th Amendment" [sic]
                        "Enslaved Us All"
                     "Without a Shot Fired"

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 23 of 36

                 The Day Our Country Was Stolen:

                  How the 14th Amendment [sic]
                         Enslaved Us All
                      Without a Shot Fired


                           L. C. Lyon

     Most Americans would agree that we, as a people, are treated
by  our   public  servants   --  the   judges,  politicians,  law
enforcement and  bureaucrats who  are paid  their salaries by our
taxes -- as if we were in complete bondage to them.  When we joke
about being  slaves to  the Government,  we don't realize that we
are exactly  correct, joke  or not.   In  fact, all  those 99% of
Americans  who  call  themselves  "U.S.  citizens"  are  actually
subjects of  the corporate  United States  Government --  not the
sovereign states of the Union.  The moment you uttered your first
cry on  American soil,  you became  the chattel  property of  the
corporation known  as the United States of America which, because
of the  federal debt,  handed title  (Birth Certificate)  to your
body and  soul to  the Federal  Reserve Bank,  to be  held in the
archives of the Department of Health and Human Services.

     As incredible  as this  sounds, it  is sadly true.  The next
question is:   How  did  I  automatically  become  subject  to  a
government, when  I'm supposedly  a free  American?  How did this
all come  about, that  I should  be made  to register  myself, my
family, and  all that  I own;   be  made to obey oppressive laws;
and forfeit almost half of my earnings upon threat of jail?  Only
those who  are "subject"  to a government can be made to do these
things.  Free American Inhabitants are subject to no one but God,
and  all   the  laws   and  responsibilities  which  that  Divine
allegiance entails.

              Which "United States" Do You Live In?

     The answer  to the above questions goes back to the American
Civil War.  The war that was supposedly fought to free the slaves
from bondage  actually did just the opposite -- for all Americans
then and  in the  future.   By enacting the 14th Amendment (which
technically is  an Article,  not a  true amendment,  but that's a
topic for  another discussion),  a whole  nation of  newly  freed
slaves and  free-born white American Inhabitants became "citizens
of the  United States", i.e. of a federal government corporation,
at the stroke of a pen and without a shot being fired.

     Because we  Americans are  a different  breed and demand the
right to  personal freedom,  those who had planned decades ago to
enslave us  (even if  it took generations to do so) knew that, as
long as  we were  armed and  willing to  fight  to  maintain  our
freedom, the  only way  to accomplish  this  enslavement  was  by

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 24 of 36

     To proceed  further, we  must understand  that there are two
"United States".   There  is the  "united States" (note the small
"u" in "united") which describes the ideological and geographical
position of  the sovereign  states of America.  An individual was
the voluntary inhabitant of the state in which he resided.  If he
did not like the laws or practices of that state, he could simply
move to  another state.   Each state was sovereign to itself, and
could not be forced to accept the laws and practices of any other

     The "United  States of America", however, is the name of the
corporate entity  (note the  capital "U" in "United") that exists
to carry  out the functions delegated to it by the States for the
protection of the Union.  This corporate entity's jurisdiction is
supposed to  be (according  to the  Constitution) confined to the
District of  Columbia, the  federal territories  and the  federal
enclaves.   Enclaves are  areas within a State's boundaries which
are ceded to the Federal Government by the State Legislature.

     Anyone  can  come  under  the  direct  jurisdiction  of  the
corporate United  States in  three ways:  (1) by living in one of
its territories  (Guam, Puerto  Rico, the  Virgin Islands, etc.),
(2) by  living in  the District  of Columbia,  or (3)  simply  by
choice.   Back when  America still  had vast territories not-yet-
become states  and several  thousands of  people lived  in  these
territories, these  people  had  no  rights  protected  by  state
sovereignty.   They lived  under federal  jurisdiction, which was
the reason  why people  living in  territories were so anxious to
achieve statehood.  The President could order federal troops into
any territory  and enact  any edicts he wanted.  Once a territory
became a  state, it  had sovereignty and, from that point on, the
state's rights prevailed.

     So, if  you don't  live in  a territory  or enclave, and you
don't live  in the  District of  Columbia, then  the only way you
could have  fallen under  the jurisdiction  of the  United States
Government is  by choice.   But  neither I,  nor anyone  I  know,
voluntarily or  knowingly surrendered  their personal sovereignty
to the  Government, which  means that  it (our  sovereignty)  was
taken from us by deception.

     This deception,  which took  place in the year 1868, is what
this article  will explain  -- how our ancestors were tricked and
coerced  into   giving  up   their  rights  (and  ours!)  to  the
jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

              Civil War Sets the Stage for Takeover

     The Constitution  for the United States of America specifies
in the  opening paragraph  that the  Constitution was written for
the newly  formed corporation,  not for  us, the People living in
America.   Our rights come from God and are inalienable.  They do
not come  from a  piece of  paper.    And,  because  the  Federal
Government exists only on paper -- a man-created entity -- it can
also be  dismantled anytime  We the People decide it has become a
threat to our inalienable God-given rights of sovereignty.

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 25 of 36

     The  Constitution   is  the   contract  between   those  who
administer the  Government's affairs and the People of the united
States.   In essence,  it states  that the  People will  give the
Government certain  powers necessary to administer the defense of
the States, and control the commerce into the States from foreign
countries.     In  exchange,   the  State  governments  (not  the
individual people -- direct taxation by the Federal Government is
unconstitutional) would  provide the Federal Government the money
it needs  to operate.  The Federal Government had limited powers;
in fact,  the Bill of Rights was hotly debated at the time of its
passage because  there were  several people  who wisely cautioned
that the  Bill of  Rights would eventually be construed as rights
endowed by  the Constitution,  not  protected  by  it  (which  is
exactly what has happened).

     How often  do you  hear patriots  mistakenly vow  to  defend
"their  Constitutional  rights"?    This  thinking  reflects  the
decades of  public school  brainwashing to which we have all been
subjected.  We need to correct each other and understand that our
rights are God-given, not constitutional.

     So, how does the Civil War enter into this present-day power
struggle between  the  Federal  Government  and  Us  the  People?
Slavery was  not the  true underlying reason for the war.  It was
an emotional,  social issue  that was used as an excuse to incite
people to  go to  war, people  who did  not realize  that foreign
agencies were  responsible  for  that  conflict.    International
bankers, seeing  the slavery  issue as an opportunity not only to
divide the  country, but make millions of dollars as well, fanned
the flames of debate until, under cover of the most bloody war in
the history  of the  world, they  were to  accomplish  that  very
objective --  the complete  takeover of  America.    They  almost
succeeded years sooner, except for the intervention of one man --
President Abraham Lincoln.

                   "Honest Abe" Knew the Truth

     President Lincoln  was against  slavery, but  he  understood
that it was wrong to force the southern States to give up slavery
-- to  force Federal  jurisdiction  over  the  issue  of  States'
Rights.  Four of the southern States were already considering the
abolition  of   slavery,  but   they  couldn't  just  abandon  it
overnight.   It would  take time.  After all, their whole economy
was built  upon slavery;   a sudden disruption would bankrupt the
South.   Lincoln understood  this.   But, it wasn't until Lincoln
got into  office that  he began  to see  the whole  picture.   He
learned that  the war was begun by the International Bankers as a
means of  dividing the  country in  two, forcing  both  sides  to
borrow heavily  from the  Bankers to  pay war  debts.  Then, when
failing to repay those loans, the divided America would be forced
into bankruptcy.   The  Rothschilds and  other bankers could then
simply foreclose  on the  corporations known as the United States
of America  and the  Confederate States  of America.    President
Lincoln knew  he had  to keep the nation together at all costs --
including war.

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 26 of 36

                   Saved by the National Banks

     Near the  end of the war, the South was on its knees and the
U.S. Government  was nearly  bankrupt.  Seeing their opportunity,
the Bankers  offered to loan the U.S. Government enough to see it
through.  Lincoln said no.  He would find another way.

     What he did then was to ask Congress for permission to print
paper money.   Even  though he knew it was unconstitutional (only
gold and  silver are  lawful U.S.  money), it was the only way he
knew to buy provisions for the Army -- but only if the U.S. banks
would accept  it.  They did.  When Lincoln gave his word that the
Government would  redeem those  notes for  gold and  silver at  a
later time,  they believed  him and  honored the notes.  By doing
this, the  planned takeover by the Bankers was averted -- at that

              The Bankers' Revenge -- Assassination

     Because he  had given  his word  to  the  nation's  bankers;
because he  had promised  the South  that,  upon  surrender,  the
Government would  help them rebuild;  and because he had promised
the Southerners  there would  be no recriminations or punishments
if they  again swore loyalty to the Union, Lincoln knew he had to
get re-elected,  though  he  was  tired,  tormented  by  migraine
headaches, and  worried about  his suffering family life.  He had
to make sure those promises were kept.

     Lincoln's complete  thwarting of  the International Bankers'
plans doomed  him to  assassination at their hands.  Papers found
in Booth's  locker show communications with an agent hired by the
Rothschild family.

     Weeks before  he was  killed, Lincoln  knew he  would die in
office.  His spies were reporting plots to kill him;  it was only
a matter  of who got to him first.  So, he met regularly with his
Vice President, Andrew Johnson, and educated him as quickly as he
could so  that he  could follow  through on  Lincoln's  promises.
Johnson listened  carefully and  understood what  was expected of
him, and why.  Then, after Lincoln's murder, he did exactly as he
was supposed to do.

     In school,  when  we  were  taught  this  part  of  American
history, we  were told  that Andrew  Johnson was  uneducated  and
ignorant,  and   fumbled  continuously   in  office,   which  was
supposedly why  he was  impeached.  Johnson was of humble origin,
but he was an honest, self-educated man who stood firmly for what
he saw  clearly were  the best interests of his country.  This is
what got him impeached.

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 27 of 36


     At  this   time,  the   only  men  in  Congress  were  those
representing the  northern States.   After  Fort Sumter,  all the
southern States  had seceded.   After  Lincoln's death,  Congress
began passing  laws to  punish the  South,  in  contradiction  to
Lincoln's promise.   Johnson  began vetoing them, sometimes three
and four  times, until Congress began passing them over his veto.
One particular  bill that  he vetoed,  the Civil Rights Bill, was
intended to  make all  former slaves  automatic citizens  of  the
Federal  Government,  and  under  its  direct  jurisdiction  (and
protection).   This seemed  like  a  compassionate  and  generous
gesture to the newly freed slaves but, as Johnson pointed out, it
would have  serious consequences  for the  Negroes.   In his veto
message in  March of  1866, Johnson  pointed out  the pitfalls of
this bill:

          He [the  Negro] must,  of necessity,  from his previous
     unfortunate condition  of servitude,  be less informed as to
     the nature  and character  of our  institutions than he who,
     coming  from   abroad,  has   to  some   extent  at   least,
     familiarized himself  with the principles of a government to
     which  he  voluntarily  entrusts  "life,  liberty,  and  the
     pursuit of happiness".

          The  1st   Section  of   the  bill   also  contains  an
     enumeration of  the rights to be enjoyed by these classes so
     made citizens  "in every  state and  territory in the United
     States".   These rights  are "to make and enforce contracts;
     to  sue,  be  parties,  and  give  evidence;    to  inherit,
     purchase, lease,  sell, hold,  and convey  real and personal
     property";   and to have "full and equal benefit of all laws
     and proceedings  for the  security of person and property as
     is enjoyed  by white  citizens".   So  too,  they  are  made
     subject to  the same  punishment, pains  and  penalties,  in
     common with white citizens ....
                                                 [emphasis added]

     Johnson could clearly see that to immediately place a string
of governmental  "rights and  benefits" upon  a totally naive and
uneducated people  as the Negroes, would also make them easy prey
for every  carpetbagger who  would trick  them into contracts, in
which they  would have  no knowledge  of the legal ramifications.
This bill  would, in  effect, make  the former  slaves as  slaves
again to  different masters:  unscrupulous businessmen, attorneys
and judges.

     Johnson saw  that this  bill was  also a  means of  foisting
unconstitutional jurisdiction  of the Federal Government in every

          Thus a  perfect equality of the white and colored races
     is attempted  to be  fixed by  federal law in every state of
     the Union  over the vast field of state jurisdiction covered
     by these enumerated rights.

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 28 of 36

          If Congress  can declare  by law  who shall hold lands,
     who shall  testify,  who  shall  have  capacity  to  make  a
     contract in  a state,  then Congress can by law also declare
     who, without  regard to  color or race, shall have the right
     to sit  as a  juror or  as a  judge, to hold any office, and
     finally, to vote "in every state and territory of the United

          The legislation  thus  proposed  invades  the  judicial
     power of  the state.  It says to every state court or judge:
     if you  decide that  this act  is unconstitutional;   if you
     refuse, under  the prohibition  of a  state law,  to allow a
     Negro to  testify;   if you  hold that  over such  a subject
     matter  the  state  law  is  paramount  ...  your  error  of
     judgment, however  conscientious, shall  abject you  to fine
     and imprisonment.

          The Legislative  Department of  the government  of  the
     United States thus takes from the Judicial Department of the
     states the  sacred and  exclusive duty  of judicial decision
     and  converts  the  state  judge  into  a  mere  ministerial
     officer, bound to decide according to the will of Congress.

                                                 [emphasis added]

     Johnson then  continued with an additional warning as to the
virtually unlimited power given to appointed agents:

          The Section  of the  bill provides  that  officers  and
     agents of  the Freedman's  Bureau shall be empowered to make
     arrests and  also  that  other  officers  may  be  specially
     commissioned for that purpose by the President of the United
     States.   It also  authorizes circuit  courts of  the United
     States  and  the  superior  courts  of  the  territories  to
     appoint, without  limitation, commissioners,  who are  to be
     charged with the performance of quasi-judicial duties.

          These numerous  agents are made to constitute a sort of
     police, in  addition to  the military, and are authorized to
     summon a posse comitatus, and even to call to their aid such
     portion of the land and naval forces of the United States or
     of the militia ....

          This extraordinary power is to be conferred upon agents
     irresponsible to  the government and to the people, to whose
     number the discretion of the commissioners is the only limit
     and in  whose hands  such authority might be made a terrible
     engine of wrong, oppression and fraud.

          The 7th  Section provides  that a fee ... shall be paid
     to each commissioner in every case brought before him, and a
     fee ... to his deputy or deputies for each person he or they
     may arrest and take before any such commissioner ....

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 29 of 36

          All those  fees are  to be "paid out of the Treasury of
     the United  States" whether  there is  a conviction  or not;
     but in  the case  of conviction  they are  to be recoverable
     from the defendant.  It seems to me that under the influence
     of such  temptations, bad men might convert any law, however
     beneficent, into an instrument of persecution  and fraud.

          To me,  the details of the bill seem fraught with evil.
     It is  another step, or rather stride, toward centralization
     and the  concentration of  all  legislative  powers  in  the
     national government.
                                                 [emphasis added]

     It is  plain to see here that President Johnson saw far into
the future  as to  the potential for legal and political abuse of
such arbitrary powers -- powers that had never before been placed
into the  hands of  a bureaucracy  that had not been subjected to
referendum by  the  people  or  constitutional  question  by  any
federal court.   This bill (which was passed over Johnson's veto)
did, in  fact, set  the precedent  for hundreds of federal, state
and local  bureaucracies that  have since choked the lifeblood of
millions of Americans.

     Also, this  bill blatantly  usurped all  States  Rights  and
opened a  very wide  door for  the further  usurpation  of  these
rights, using other social agendas.

     The reason  Andrew Johnson  was  impeached  was  because  he
fought  so  hard  against  this  bill  and  the  subsequent  14th
Amendment.   His enemies  purposely did  not mention to the press
(nor to the public) the legal and political ramifications of this
bill which  Johnson had  so succinctly  pointed out;  but instead
they broadcasted  the notion  that he  was reneging  on Lincoln's
promises to  "heal the  wounds" of  the nation  by fighting  full
rights for the Negro -- thus making it an emotional social issue.

     In fact, Johnson was keeping Lincoln's promises by trying to
protect the  rights of  the newly  freed slaves,  as well  as the
rights of  those states which knew their own former slaves better
than anyone,  and knew  the Negroes  were not  yet ready  for the
responsibilities of citizenship.  As Johnson had predicted, after
passage of  the bill,  so many  of the  Negroes had  indeed  been
robbed of  goods and  property by  white charlatans and/or thrown
into jails  for breaking  commercial laws they did not understand
that, when  the Negroes did come to full awareness of the massive
duplicity perpetrated  by these  scoundrels, a  racial hatred and
mistrust of  all whites  became a  nationwide phenomenon that has
never been erased to this day.

                       The Final Axe Falls

     After the bill was passed over Johnson's veto, and there was
no general  hue and  cry from the public, Congress then proceeded
with the next step -- the 14th Amendment.  In order to understand
the ramifications  of this  heinous act  of Congress,  it must be
analyzed section-by-section:

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 30 of 36

     ARTICLE XIV.  Section 1.  All persons born or naturalized in
     the United  States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
     are citizens  of the  United States and of the State wherein
     they reside.   No  State shall make or enforce any law which
     shall abridge  the privileges  or immunities  of citizens of
     the United  States;   nor shall any State deprive any person
     of life,  liberty, or  property, without due process of law;
     nor deny  to any  person within  its jurisdiction  the equal
     protection of the laws.
                                                 [emphasis added]

     In the  very first  line,  the  amendment  states  that  all
persons born  (all babies from this point on) or naturalized (the
newly freed slaves who were then just inhabitants of America) are
now citizens of the United States (the Federal Government) and of
the State  (the State  Government) where  they lived.   From  the
Declaration of  Independence on,  all people in America who lived
here were Americans, residing in a particular geographical state,
and free to move from state to state, or even to another country.
The Federal  Government, according  to  the  Constitution,  is  a
corporate fiction that does the bidding of the body of collective
states called  Congress.  At this time, the state governments had
similar limited  jurisdiction over  their inhabitants, as did the
federal government.   The state government's primary function was
to act  as a  collective voice  of all  its inhabitants to convey
their wishes  to  Congress.    Congress  controlled  the  federal

     The rule  of Common  Law, which  was the  law of the land at
that time,  was carried  out exclusively by the County Sheriff --
the Common Law concept of Posse Comitatus.  Neither the State nor
the Federal  Government had any jurisdiction in the County, where
Home Rule  was the  law.  Only by permission or invitation by the
Sheriff could  either of  the other  two governments step foot in
his County.   The  Civil Rights  Bill, in  one bold  act,  forced
Federal Government  jurisdiction into the sanctity of State rule.
But  Posse  Comitatus  still  reigned  in  each  state,  and  the
conspirators found the way to usurp jurisdiction here through the
14th Amendment.

                  Citizens, Subjects  =  Slaves

     In order  for any  government to grab power and maintain it,
it must  have "subjects" or "citizens".  According to Black's Law
Dictionary (Sixth  Edition), "Citizens are members of a political
community who,  in their associated capacity, have established or
submitted themselves  to the  dominion of  a government  for  the
promotion of  their general  welfare and  the protection of their
individual as  well as  collective rights.   (Herriot  v. City of
Seattle, 81 Wash.2d. 48, 500 P.2d. 101, 109)"

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 31 of 36

     So, by  declaration of  the 14th Amendment, all persons born
from that  point forward,  and all  naturalized people,  had just
become citizens  (i.e. subjects) of the United States Government,
obviously without  their knowledge (babies) or understanding (the
Negroes).   The Federal  Government had  just  reached  past  the
jurisdictional boundaries  of the  state  and  county  lines  and
claimed all its babies and all Negroes.

     In Section 2, it then states that only males 21 years of age
who are  citizens of  the United States may be allowed to vote in
Federal and  State elections.  That means that only those men who
willingly claimed  U.S. citizenship on voter's registration cards
(though they  didn't realize  the implications) were also brought
in  as   subjects  of  the  Federal  Government.    (The  Federal
Government's power  and control  are growing  fast!)  However, it
stipulated that  those who  had participated  in  rebellion  (the
South) were excluded.

                          The Back Door

     At this  point, any  intelligent person  can figure out that
the Conspirators  who were  using this  Amendment  to  claim  all
Americans as  its citizens  -- by  deception  --  were  obviously
performing an illegal and unconstitutional act.  The conspirators
in  Congress   (and  every   Congressman  knew   what  was  being
perpetrated, and  either promoted  it or  simply pretended not to
notice) established  a "loophole"  for themselves  and  to  cover
themselves in  case people  began to catch on.  This loophole was
15 Statutes  at Large,  Chapter 249 (Section 1), enacted July 27,
1868, one  day before the 14th Amendment was declared "ratified".
You will  not see  this statute published anywhere except in very
old books.  The Conspirators do not want their "citizens" to know
it exists, and it has never been repealed.  The text follows:

          CHAP. CCXLIX. -- An Act concerning the Rights
             of American Citizens in foreign States

          Whereas the  right of  expatriation is  a  natural  and
     inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment
     of  the   rights  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of
     happiness;  and whereas in the recognition of this principle
     this government  has  freely  received  emigrants  from  all
     nations, and  invested them  with the rights of citizenship;
     and whereas  it is claimed that such American citizens, with
     their descendants,  are subjects  of foreign  states,  owing
     allegiance to  the governments  thereof;   and whereas it is
     necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim
     of  foreign   allegiance  should  be  promptly  and  finally
     disavowed:  Therefore,

          Be  it   enacted  by   the  Senate  and  the  House  of
     Representatives of  the United States of America in Congress
     assembled,  That   any  declaration,  instruction,  opinion,
     order, or  decision of any officers of this government which
     denies,  restricts,  impairs,  or  questions  the  right  of
     expatriation,  is  hereby  declared  inconsistent  with  the
     fundamental principles of this government.

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 32 of 36

     On the  surface, this  seems to  guarantee that "foreigners"
who live  in the  borders of  America cannot  be forced  to claim
citizenship.   But, what this also says is that anyone who wishes
to expatriate  (i.e. renounce  their U.S. citizenship) may do so,
by inherent right, and no one can deny him this right.

     The Conspirators  knew that,  the "letter of the law" having
been satisfied  with this  exemption from  compelled  performance
(having U.S.  citizenship thrust  upon us),  they could then hide
the exemption  from general  view, start promoting the "benefits"
of U.S.  citizenship in  the media (and later, in public schools)
and begin  setting up all of us for manipulation to obey millions
of codes,  statutes, and laws;  exacting fines for breaking these
laws;   and extracting  license fees  and taxes  upon penalty  of
seizure or jail.

     Free American  Inhabitants are  not subject  to the  Federal
Government by  virtue of  their not  claiming  U.S.  citizenship.
Those of  us who have renounced our U.S. citizenship and declared
our status as American Inhabitants, using 15 Statutes at Large as
the legal foundation for this Declaration of Status, are the only
ones living in the united States of America.  The rest of America
(U.S. citizens  -- about 99%) are living in a 4th dimension, i.e.
in a  fictitious corporation called the United States of America.
As far  as America  is concerned (except that 1%), there's nobody

                       Slavery by Election

     We can  see that,  in the  14th Amendment, those Southerners
who had  participated in  the Civil  War were  excluded from this
"benefit" (U.S.  Citizenship) on  purpose --  to punish  them  so
severely with  sanctions, punishing  fines and terrorism from the
newly formed  Freeman's Bureau,  that  a  few  years  later,  the
Southerners would  be grateful  for any consideration the Federal
Government would  extend to them.  When the opportunity was ripe,
such a consideration was enacted -- the 15th Amendment.  It reads
(in part):

     Section 1.   The  right of  citizens of the United States to
     vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
     by  any  State  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous
     condition of servitude.

     By this gracious gesture, Congress extended full forgiveness
to the  South, and  restored their  right to  vote (at that time,
considered to  be the  most sacred right of an American).  At the
next national  election after  the enactment  of this  amendment,
there was  the largest  turnout of  voters this  nation had  ever
seen.   The South  wanted desperately to be restored to the Union
and heal  their wounds.   When they heard that, in order to vote,
they had  to swear allegiance to the United States of America and
thus become  a "citizen of the United States" (as required by the
14th Amendment),  they did  so willingly and without a clue as to
what they had just done to themselves and to their posterity.

     With the  stroke of  a pen,  the  14th  Amendment,  and  the
subsequent 15th  Amendment, had  just enslaved  an entire  nation
without a shot being fired.

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 33 of 36

                     The "Forgotten" Clause

     Obviously, this  treacherous act  by Congress  was enough to
have all of them hanged as traitors;  but, there was one more act
of treachery  that has been overlooked by most people.  Section 4
of the 14th Amendment reads:

     The validity  of the  public  debt  of  the  United  States,
     authorized by  law, including  debts incurred for payment of
     pensions  and   bounties   for   services   in   suppressing
     insurrection or  rebellion, shall  not be  questioned.   But
     neither the  United States nor any State shall assume or pay
     any debt  or obligation  incurred in  aid of insurrection or
     rebellion against  the United  States, or  any claim for the
     loss or  emancipation of  any slave;   but  all such  debts,
     obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

                                                 [emphasis added]

     At that  time, a hue and cry was raised concerning Lincoln's
promises  to   "forgive"   the   South's   debts   as   part   of
Reconstruction, with  good reason.  But mainly overlooked was the
first part  of Section  4, which  says that the debts incurred by
the U.S. government were not to be questioned, that the enforcers
whom the  Government hired to quell insurrection (today, the CIA,
FBI, BATF,  DEA, U.S.  Marshals,  etc.)  would  be  paid  by  the
Government.   And where  was the Government's money to come from?
Answer:   Its newly  acquired subjects  -- U.S.  citizens.    The
States  had   just  signed   into  constitutional  amendment  the
permission for  the Federal  Government to hire thugs and thieves
to control  us, to  pay them  with our  own money,  and  that  no
question could be brought to court about the constitutionality of
these actions.   This  is why  any effort to bring a suit against
the Government  about the  Federal debt will never be entertained
by the Supreme Court!

                        A Dangerous Game

     In Europe,  Africa and  other places  in the world, a despot
simply took  over a  country by  waging war.   Here  in  America,
however, as long as Americans were armed and prepared for hostile
armed takeover,  the Conspirators knew that a different technique
-- a grand deception by manipulation of the laws, the courts, the
schools, the  media --  must  be  employed  to  obtain  the  same
results.  They waged war on us long ago, but we've been too naive
to see  it.  There are many who are waking up now, but they don't
see the whole picture.  They think that if they reverse a certain
portion of  Government abuse,  we can take our country back.  Tax
protestors (as  IRS calls them) have perfectly correct reasons to
point out  that they  are not required to file -- but they forget
they are  still U.S.  citizens (i.e.  subjects).   Home schoolers
fight bravely  for their  right to protect their children against
Government control  --  but  they  forget  they  are  still  U.S.
citizens.   Legal eagles have found many statutory "loopholes" to
win a few battles in court -- but they forget they are still U.S.

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 34 of 36

     Playing the  "patriot game"  without fully understanding the
constitutional hold the Federal, State and local governments have
over them  is playing  a dangerous  game.   They may  win  a  few
skirmishes in  their  battles  with  Government  (the  Government
allows these  "wins" to  encourage us  to  continue  wasting  our
energies in useless effort), but they will never win the war, and
will only bring the wrath of Government down upon the head of yet
another one of its subjects.

     For now,  at least,  the Government is respecting the status
of American  Inhabitants.   We (your  publisher L.  C.  Lyon  and
writer George  Sibley) have  not had  any legal  hassles from any
Government entity,  because we  are no  longer U.S. citizens.  We
are the  same as  George Washington,  Thomas Jefferson,  Benjamin
Franklin and  all the  other patriots  were in their time -- free
American  Inhabitants.    Any  U.S.  citizen  can  give  up  this
enslaving status at any time, but it must be done properly.

     If everyone  in America  were to  take back  their rights as
free  Americans   again,  through  the  revocation  process,  the
Government would have no more subjects, and no more power!


[Minor grammatical  and spelling edits were done to this essay by
John E. Trumane.  These edits were done without permission of the
author, because  Mr. Trumane  did not  have the  author's mailing
address at the time the edits were done.]

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 35 of 36

                        PROOF OF SERVICE

I, William  Michael,  Kemp,  Sui  Juris,  hereby  certify,  under

penalty of  perjury, under  the laws  of  the  United  States  of

America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years

of age,  a Citizen  of one  of the  United States of America, and

that I personally served the following document(s):

                    AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE:
     28 U.S.C. 1746(1), 1861, 1865;  Rules 201(d), 301, 302,
    Federal Rules of Evidence;  Full Faith and Credit Clause

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first

class U.S.  Mail, with  postage prepaid and properly addressed to

the following:

James E. Hedgspeth, Jr.       Clerk of Court
Etowah County Offices         Circuit Court of Etowah County
c/o 800 Forrest Avenue        c/o 800 Forrest Avenue
Gadsden [zip code exempt]     Gadsden [zip code exempt]
ALABAMA                       ALABAMA

Solicitor General             Clerk of Court
Department of Justice         Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
10th and Constitution, N.W.   c/o P.O. Box 301555
Washington [zip code exempt]  Montgomery [zip code exempt]

Attorney General              Clerk of Court
Department of Justice         District Court of the United States
10th and Constitution, N.W.   c/o 1729 Fifth Avenue North
Washington [zip code exempt]  Birmingham [zip code exempt]

Chief Judge                   William H. Rehnquist, C.J.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals Supreme Court of the United States
c/o 56 Forsyth Street, N.W.   1 First Street, N.E.
Atlanta [zip code exempt]     Washington [zip code exempt]
GEORGIA                       DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Executed on ____________________________________

/s/ Mike Kamp

William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris
Citizen of Alabama state             [See USPS Publication #221.]

  Verified Statement Challenging Federal Jury Selection Policy:
                          Page 36 of 36

                             #  #  #

Return to the Table of Contents for

Alabama v. Kemp