The tale of two citizenships - Part I

In the early 1990’s some of my fiends and I began a journey that would make history. My education during this time, from 1989 to 1994, led me to Constitutional inquiries and revelations that would change my life.

I learned from the Constitution what a freeman (person) was supposed to look like before the law. Most folks in America think they live in a free country. Maybe they do and maybe they don’t. What I know for sure is that most Americans have no idea what a freeman looks like before the law and before society in general. I did not know either until I made it a point to learn it. What I learned was shocking, nerve racking and dangerous. Are you ready to hear what I know?

The United States of America is the most unique and ingenious system of governance ever to come about on the planet. The framers attempted to remove the historically proven “bad stuff” from other forms of governments while setting in legal motion many new and unparalleled elements. Governance by the consent of the governed, as apposed to rule by birth right, had virtually no precedence in history. Even the Romans had an emperor. Our forefathers trounced on the idea of the divine right of Kings. Their new system ensconced in the Constitution the requirement that one had to earn the ability to have governing authority from those whom they would govern. American citizens were different – we were, are, no longer subjects of a king but rather free and autonomous individuals before the State. The Supreme Court stated:

On the declaration of independence, it was in the option of any subject of Great Britain to remain British citizens or to become citizens of the republic. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall 199, 1 L Ed 568.

The very idea of royalty, especially when that royalty used their “divine right” to tyrannize their subjects, graded on the framer’s legal and moral intellect. Subjects are not freemen, plain and simple.

I under take a difficult task here, for this is a hard subject with which to stay on track and yet not loose the reader by leaving gaps in information. The intertwined principles and facts will come together, I promise, if you’ll just stay with the rattlesnake until the end. I will have to spread this over a number of BLOG entries. Therefore, stay tune to the rattlesnake to get the whole enchilada. Here is the first sign post, written by the United States Supreme Court, as we enter a network of jurisdiction, citizenship and subjects.

The courts presume you to be a federal citizen, without even telling you that there are different classes of citizens. It is up to you to dispute this. “Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability”. U.S. V. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179, 182 (1982).

The context of this statement by the court is obviously from a tax case, but I do not want you to focus on that. This statement alone could run us down many avenues, but let’s take a moment to deconstruct it. What are the main legal points the court is trying to get across?

First, the courts (notice the plural) presume you to be a federal citizen. So we have a Supreme Court acknowledgement of a federal citizenship class. Second, the courts will not tell you what other classes of citizens exist – but there are others. Third, it is up to you to know all of the classes of citizens and to dispute the court’s assumption if you are not a federal citizen. And, in order to be thorough with our deconstruction, the court’s presumption, if allowed to stand undisputed, allows the Internal Revenue Service, in this case, to inquire and determine tax liability. So what are the other citizenships you and I must better be aware of?

Before I get to the other citizenship, I want to digress and run down one rabbit trail. In law, a presumption may stand as fact unless it is disputed. The courts are not mean; it is just that it is not their job to teach anybody the law. No matter what you attempt to accomplish in any court, you had better know exactly what you are doing. What if, in the Slater case above, the person was not actually a federal citizen and thus, presumably, not subject to IRS inquiry and tax liability. This defendant, not being aware of other possible options open to him, and certainly not being told by the court, will watch as the court’s presumption of federal citizenship stands, against the defendant’s own ignorance, and the combination of the two will be (probably) a nasty outcome for the defendant -- an outcome that could possibly have been avoided had he only known about other citizenships under which he may reside and make a defense. You mean to say that the courts would let me walk into a morass without any warning me while they are in full knowledge of the truth? You ask. Yes they would and do all of the time. Now back to our topic.

Certainly, if a person is visiting from say France, and finds themselves in an American court, they would not be a federal citizen and could easily dispute the court’s assumption; this is not really what the court is referring to. There is another citizenship in America. Read, again, the United States Supreme Court:

The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress. U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)

The other citizen class is a sovereign, native born American citizen of one of the several states.

In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 18 L.Ed. 2d 757,761,87 S. Ct. 1660 (1967)

The special class of citizen created by congress is the class called United States citizen. It was created by the 14th Amendment. The following ruling makes it clear that birth on American soil is a sufficient and complete right of citizenship declared by the Constitution:

The power of Congress to regulate naturalization under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution does not include the power to restrict the effect of birth to constitute a sufficient and complete right of citizenship as declared by the Constitution.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 18Ct 456.

So you see there are two distinct and separate citizenships known to and recognized by the courts; the Federal United States citizen created by congress in 1868 through the 14th Amendment and the sovereign, native born Citizen guaranteed by the Constitution. Why did Congress create a citizenship? What citizenship(s) existed before the special creation of congress? What are the legal differences between the United States Federal citizen and the state Citizen? What, exactly, is a United States Federal citizen? What exactly does this fact of two citizenships mean to you and me as American’s and freemen? I shall enlighten you. Stay tuned for the next BLOG entry on this topic.

The rattelsnake