To: MYRLANDsMETHODs@yahoogroups. com
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:07:20 +0000
Subject: [MYRLANDsMETHODs] Letter from friend on differant jurisdictions
Thanks for sending the article below. I have been trying to explain the different jurisdictions to people, but boy it sure did raise cognitive dissonance in Don Cline a couple of weeks back.
The court cases that I include below fortify the fact that U.S. citizens are "resident aliens" within their states of the Union that compose the Republic. I am also convinced that a foreign U.S. citizen of D.C. accepts citizenship in the corporate structure that operates within his state of the Union such as the 1857 "State of Iowa" that operates within the borders of the 1846 state called Iowa.
To lawfully achieve total freedom under common law, U.S. citizens have to wake up to the fact that they are citizens of "a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations" such as Red China and they are definitely not Citizens in the Republic consisting of the United States meaning "the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution" . Under English common law you are a citizen of the country in which you were born for life (in my case Iowa) and you can never ever expatriate from your country in which you were born and you have no choice in the matter. Under the government's Roman Civil law you can freely expatriate from your country of Michigan and voluntarily choose to become a citizen of any foreign jurisdiction if that jurisdiction will accept you as its citizen. The common law exists in the states while the Supreme Court has stated in Erie Railroad v. Thompkins that there is no federal general common law. The Supreme Court has also opined as follows:
The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. v. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652 (1945): and
"The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; . . . . . The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. " U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542
This means the U.S. citizen has "voluntarily submitted himself" into being a foreign U.S. citizen and "subject" to two governments under Roman civil law. The Declaration of Independence says "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." U.S. citizens born in the states voluntarily provide consent for their just powers and don't even realize their subject status by their citizenship in D.C.
There are two of nearly everything and this really confuses people. The Iowa Supreme Court has stated that there are no common law crimes within "The State of Iowa". The courts of the corporate "State of Iowa" will give the common law no standing, all while the Iowa Supreme Court has also opined respecting Iowa, to wit:
We have previously acknowledged that although not expressly declared by our statutes or constitution to be part of Iowa law, "the common law has always been . . . in force in Iowa." Iowa Civil Liberties Union v. Critelli, 244 N.W.2d 564 (Iowa 1976) In the Supreme Court of Iowa No. 125 / 05-0485 (Certified Question of Law)
This opinion was a certified question of law presented to the Iowa Supreme Court by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
All of this is why I have formally declared allegiance to my country of Iowa (not the corporate State of Iowa) and I have renounced my U.S. citizenship in the foreign jurisdiction where there are no rights but only privileges the same as if one voluntarily joins the Army.
George Gordon explains that if a person is feeling depressed and goes to the insane asylum and tells the nice lady at the desk about it and checks himself into the institution, and after a couple of weeks on Prozac he's feeling better, he cannot check himself out without the institution' s permission. Under federal law, the only way a U.S. citizen can remove himself from the insane asylum after checking himself in is by expatriation in accordance with its codified rules and regulations. You can expatriate from the jurisdiction of United States by declaring allegiance to a foreign country. The United States is a foreign corporation with respect to Iowa and Michigan. My formal declaration of allegiance to the country of Iowa, with explicit declaration of expatriation from the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, falls smack under United States Code Section 1481 (a) (2), as the jurisdiction of the United States is foreign to the common law jurisdiction of Iowa. We were born to U.S. citizens and a birth certificate was obtained for us and we were registered as U.S. citizens. We were then the State's child and we could be removed from our parents at any time under equitable proceedings for the best interest of the child. Why were we were never taught by State certified teachers that if we wanted to be free as our ancestors we needed to take appropriate action to achieve the status as free men under common law in the Republic when we reached 21 (and now 18 years of age.) If we had taken appropriate action we would be "non-taxpayers" as Citizens of the state of the Union in which we were born and we would be capital [C] Citizens of the (several) United States as designated in the Constitution and not small [c] citizens.
Fifty dollar bills are legal tender in the jurisdiction of the United States and in its 1857 sub-corporation named "The State of Iowa" with its capitol in Des Moines. Fifty dollar gold coins are lawful money under Article I, Section 10 of the federal Constitution within the common law jurisdiction of the 1846 state called Iowa whose capitol is in Iowa City. The capitol in Iowa City sits empty because basically all the free people in the Republic have expatriated to the jurisdiction of the United States and under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of its sub division "State of Iowa" and subject to the jurisdiction of its statutes. As subjects most people elect representatives to pass such things as seat belt laws and driver license statutes for their insurance companies that insure them. Free men practice strict liability under the common law, and don't affect any public interest whatsoever. When a free man of the Republic is dragged into court it will be presumed that he is a subject with a social security number thereby affecting a public interest and needs to be regulated under public policy. This presumption needs to be properly destroyed if we want to be free. I believe that the "state of Iowa" was created with its 1846 Constitution and is the Republic while the 1857 "State of Iowa" is a federal State for passing law on U.S. citizens like Puerto Rico is the proper name of a part of the United States. I'm sure a U.S. citizen and a resident of the "State of Iowa" under the Fourteenth Amendment could just move to Puerto Rico and become a Fourteenth Amendment citizen of Puerto Rico with the same U.S. privileges there, and have the same Form 1040 tax obligations there, or vice versa.
U.S. citizens that are residents of the State of Iowa are subject to statutes that are in derogation of the common law while free men in the Republic are not. Statutes in derogation of the common law law are advisory with respect to free men. Iowa Code Section 4.2 states: "The rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to this Code. Its provisions and all proceedings under it shall be liberally construed with a view to promote its objects and assist the parties in obtaining justice." This means that an Iowa statute must bend when dealing with a free man if the free man knows how not to consent to be prosecuted under one of these statutes.
There is definitely a dual system between the states united under the Constitution and the United States that is analogous to a mini-United Nations and headquartered in D.C. The U.S. income tax system is a voluntary system and it is voluntary because it is predicated upon "citizenship" .
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to non taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws." Stewart v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce, 168 F.2d 709, 712.
Again, you can see the dual system. U.S. citizens residing in the 'State of Michigan' or 'State of Iowa' are 'taxpayers'. This is why in an interview Harry Reid stated that he did not understand the phraseology when talking about the voluntary income tax system and was then asked if he meant that "taxpayers" don't have to pay their income taxes. To most ignorant people Harry Reid looked like a blubbering idiot when he did not come right out and specifically let the cat out of the bag. The Supreme Court has opined that the 16th Amendment added no new taxing powers, but I contend that the Fourteenth Amendment did add new taxing powers for those people within the states and wishing to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" so they can receive U.S. socialized security or food stamps or "free?" State education for their children.
Being completely free and residing in the Creator who endows men with certain unalienable rights, and not residing in the State for security, is a very scary thing for most people! It wasn't always so scary when neighbors took care of neighbors in need, but with U.S. citizenship everyone thinks the government should pick up the task. And the problem is you can't be partially free in the Democracy that the founding fathers never had a good word for, nor put Democracy in the Constitution. Being partially free is like a woman being partially pregnant. Old Ben Franklyn indicated, "He who would give up liberty for a little security deserves neither.
Because people look back at the freedom our ancestors had while still enjoying constitutionally secured rights in their state, and want to also live in freedom but are now "voluntarily" subject to the jurisdiction that was foreign respecting our ancestors, the United States now has 5 1/2 times the prison rate compared to the next closest sovereignty in the family of nations, [T]he Peoples Republic of China.
A foreign U.S. citizen doing any business within a state is deemed to be in interstate commerce and thereby subject to the commerce clause in the Constitution.
I am convinced that to be free we need to first achieve our status as sovereigns in our states, abstain from interstate commerce over which the United States has delegated authority, and then as free men we have to appropriately break that foreign jurisdiction in its court system that is operating here in lieu of exercising jurisdiction at law. This foreign jurisdiction is the antithesis of the common law of the states. Even if we have the status of free men, judges and magistrates will continue to operate upon presumption that we are subject to their statutory law. The judges operate under this law, to wit: "Whenever the Code creates a "presumption" with respect to a fact, or provides that a fact is "presumed," the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact unless and until evidence is introduced that supports a finding of its nonexistence. "
I believe that we, as sovereign free people, need to vey timely and properly challenge the jurisdiction of these courts without ever pleading into their foreign jurisdiction with a "not guilty" plea, nor ever allowing the judge to plead us into his foreign jurisdiction as if we are his subjects, and we need to properly submit evidence to the trier of fact that shows our status as free men to break the presumption that we are subject to his statutes within the jurisdiction under which he operates.
Howard Freeman used to pose the following question to the judges while equity has no cognizance of criminal matters, "This court has two criminal jurisdictions. One is a common law jurisdiction and the other is a condition of contract under the criminal aspects of an admiraly jurisdiction. Under which jurisdiction is this court planning to try this case?"
A soldier in the Army is in admiralty jurisdiction by his enlistment contract and if he doesn't peel potatoes when the sargent say so, it is criminal.
The Bible says: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." I always tell the grandkids, "Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is forever." And boy have I overcome a bunch of ignorance in about the last 10 months after spending some time in jail and putting information from George Gordon, Bill Thorton, and others together in my head.