Jason_b
Since Sep 30, 1999
|
|
Jason_b
Since Sep 30, 1999
| |||||
|
| ||||||
This column contains exactly three things: an 1870 court case citation, proof that citiation is genuine (not an internet legend), and, finally, a necessarily long commentary on on the citation and what it means to all Americans today.
The following excerpt from an American court case needs to be read by you and as many people as it can be forwarded to. I would like for everyone to read it more than just once; please cut and paste the citation and print it out and read it from time to time. And think about it. I had to read it a couple of times before its impact became apparent to me.
Send comments and questions to kirbyjason@hotmail.com.
What follows is remarkable. Embedded in the print of past court cases are words that explain the loss of political power on the part of the people. You will find below such a case, followed by commentary.
1. 1870 Court Case Citiation.
I cited this case in a couple of postings, allowing that it might be bogus and that I would try to verify it. My verification is as follows.
2. Proof That This Citiation Is Genuine
Please click this LINK and see how I have searched for 40 Cal. 311. You can type 260 into the field in the upper right and press enter and see the other page. And see also this LINK for "people v. de la guerra." The icons showing up on the left are books, click them and you are taken to the pages of books which cite the same case. The search term is highlighted in yellow. Scroll to the title pages to see what books these citations came out of. These are some very impressive resources.
Finally click this LINK to see the results of searching for the phrase, "evident that they have not the political rights" and the phrase comes up on page 745 or section 140 Persons Protected, in a book published in 1922 titled "California Jurisprudence," by William M. McKinney, and the full text reads as follows:
Then 16 is a citation to People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311.
I think I have verified this case more than sufficiently. The case is real. The only reason I was cautious about it was because the only place I found it referenced, at first, was on a website of unconfirmed reputation. So I checked the case and it checks out ok.
Since the case is not an hoax, I'd like to comment on it, and I shall begin with the statement, "Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens."
3. Commentary
Words Mean Things.
We are discussing those born in the Territories and in the District of Columbia. The first objection that comes to mind is, if their "position," as he (the judge) calls it, is more of the character of subjects than of citizens, then why insist on calling them citizens? Since their position partakes more of the character of subjects, then they should be called subjects. Not until their position partakes more of the character of citizens should they be called citizens. In no other area of life would such abuse of the language be tolerated. The using of the word citizen to denote both of vastly differing types of political status is a gross abuse of language. Could it be that the ruling elite at the time hoped to exploit, eventually, confusion resulting from this abuse of language? Is there any doubt that this would lead to people becoming confused about what rights they have? I believe it has happened and that we are seeing the results today.
You may have thought already, it doesn't matter, I wasn't born in DC, and I wasn't born in a territory. Let the people in DC and Puerto Rico worry about their problem. I was born in a State so it is irrelevant to me. I am saying you're wrong about that. I am saying it is relevant to you too. I will explain why later when I discuss "legal presence." If you thought that ideas on citizenship change over time and it doesn't really matter if you were born in DC, or MD or any other state anymore, that you are simply a U.S. citizen by default, you'd be right. But then the question would be, this U.S. citizen that I am, from which did it inherit---the State Citizen status or the born in Washington DC or a Territory status? Don't assume their characters merged. More likely one remained and was renamed, while the other went inactive due to disuse. It matters greatly because if U.S. citizen is a renamed descendant status of "...born in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia," then U.S. citzens have the rights described in the 1870 court case for those born in the territories and the District of Columbia, and nowhere near the rights of our ancestors who were State Citizens. This would explain a lot of what goes on today.
You may at first think this is very pedantic or obsessive hair-splitting of semantics. Law is that way. Have your read your credit card agreement lately? Your citizenship is of law. Don't think it is any less complex of an issue. This judge knows the subject down to such fine detail that he is able to testify to the existence of the political rights vested in Citizens of States (1) and to make it clear that those other people born in the Territories and the District of Columbia (2) have not only different rights, but lack those held by Citizens of States. He even says, "It is evident..." It is? Was it ever "evident" to you, reader, "that they have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States? It certainly wasn't to me. Why it was "evident" to him, I'd like very much to know. What evidence was there to make it so evident? Whatever it was, it was sufficient to allow this case to be cited in other authoratative texts of the period, see the the links above.
Get Back To First Class Citizenship.
We have two classes of people discussed by this case. In the sentence above, the former, (1); and the latter (2). I believe confusion, deliberately allowed to happen, has led to the emergence of a third class. This third class believes they have the political rights of State Citizens (they love to quote the founding fathers, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights), but are actually technically and legally grouped into the second class which they don't even know exists. They assume idealistically (and wrongly, we now see) that we all have the same rights as Americans regardless of who is born where, DC, a territory, a State. I believe most Americans fall into this third group. I know that I do, or did. Except, now I know about the second class, and about which you are now finding out. Once you learn about the second class, you cease to be in the third. The trick is to find your way back into the first.
It is probably this differential in citizenship and subject status which motivated the people in the territories to want their territories to become States of the Union, and for themselves to become Citizens of their State---to have political rights. If they, in the territories, had all along had the same political rights as Citizens of the States, what incentive would there have been to join the Union? / rhetorical It is important to know when to stop. Once Statehood was achieved, that should have been it, the end of the road. But the Citizens within the States, oddly, accepted citizenship with the Union government itself. This is both unfortunate and sad because the Union government wasn't ever designed to deal with people. It was designed from-the-ground-up to deal with States, internally, and Foreign Nations, externally.
But since the territories have long since acquired statehood, everyone professes---what? Right. U.S. citizenship---as if they are on par with those born in Washington DC or the Territories mentioned in the case above. This is the result of admitting all the territories to the Union (except Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.), that their citizens have, without physically moving, all legally left the States that the Territories became, but remaining only as legal residents of the State, and becoming "mere citizens" as mentioned in the case above, of the "United States of America," the Federal Government. Additionally, those Citizens in the existing States that formed the original Union, they too, in the same way, have accepted the same fate. The fate is to have lost "the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States." The ideal of inalienable rights is noble. Perhaps within a State, and as Citizen of a State, inalienable rights are inalienable. But it should be painfully obvious by now that inalienable rights can be compromised at least by a change in citizenship status.
Why was there ever any place created here among the several States, in this land we consider our country, a place, where people are subjects---forgetting about the issue of how they are called citizens or mere citizens through abuse of language. That is like establishing England, literally a piece of land that is Sovereign English Territory, stuffed with subjects to the King, right here. Once you get rid of something, like cancer, or tyranny, do you put a few malignant cells back in to grow again? This is why I don't understand why, when you have States that have Citizens with Political Power, do you introduce this odd area where people don't. I have my suspicions. I suspect is was a trap. It was set by people who didn't really like the idea of liberty. There was an element that wanted to restore the old aristocratic order where there were those who gave orders and those who had to take orders. They didn't advertise this, of course. And they didn't exercise this power over subjects at first as that would have alarmed people as to what was happening. But in the District of Columbia, definitely, was created a jurisdiction where the people called themselves citizens while the elites knew better. The case above admits it all. The District Columbia, the seat of government for the government for the United States could have been created from the start as a small Commonwealth, equivalent to Virginia, so that its Citizens (in the proper meaning of the word) could have full political rights as the judge in 40 cal 311 knew the people of the States have. But they didn't. And it was perhaps deliberate, not an oversight. Trojan Horse, anyone? This persistent subject status for people "born in the District of Columbia" would later become what we know today as U.S. citizen, or citizen of the United States of America. Don't try and tell me that the subject status degraded "citizenship" for people born in the District withered on the vine, became obsolete, disappeared and became a nullity. It would have been much too valuable a tool for separating the common people from their Power for the ruling elite not to have known about it, or to let it not be used in this way. It, this compromised citizenship, is very much alive today in the form of U.S. citizenship, doing as has always been intended: maintaining subjects for the federal power and distracting them from the potentialities of State Citizenship. If you doubt this, next time you see 50% of your income disappear to the Federal IRS, reconsider, and remember the number of times you declare U.S. citizenship rather than Citizen of your State. 50%!
Many may recall history class in high school, there was always a reminder that at one time there were those who wanted George Washington to be King and he disdained the idea of another Monarchy. Supposedly this is how we got our Republic. But then we have this case telling us we have subjects on this continent. The point of this column is that we have been legally migrated or transitioned from citizen to subject so that now we have a King in all manner except title in the person of the President of the United States, and his Parliament in the body of Congress. That Washington as King story is probaby a myth, as there are so many myths; regardless, but if true, it is a fine piece of indirection, pretend we are against the monarchy on this side of the stage while preparing for the new monarchy on the other side of the stage. That the new King is elected gives me no comfort. So much influences who can attain the Presidency now that there is no way Mr. Smith will ever get to Washington. The elections are just for show, both parties are dominant and both are owned by special interests.
Now we come to legal presence.
"Legal presence means that a person is either a U.S. citizen or is legally authorized to be in the United States. Legal presence can be proved using a U.S. birth certificate or U.S. passport. It also can be proved using a variety of other documents such as a Certificate of Citizenship or Naturalization, Resident Alien Card or a valid foreign passport with a visa, I-94 or an I-94W with a participating country."
Here's a link: Legal Presence If not for the case under discussion, I might not think twice about this legal presence matter. It seems harmless enough. But look how anxious Virginia is for Virginians to declare legal presence...as a U.S. citizen. Look at how many U.S. documents are required to do this. Think of People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal 311, as you check the box and send in the paperwork. This legal presence is a subscription to the same subject status that the judge mentions and I abbreviated as "class 2" above. Not knowing this has you in class 3. As free Americans, we want to be in class 1: State Citizens with Political Rights. Remember, I didn't make any of this up. I'm simply analyzing the case. If you don't like what you are reading it is too late to take it up with the judge who presided over 40 Cal 311, he's the one you'd have to complain to.
He Controls The Debate.
The old saying, if I can get it close or paraphrase, 'He who controls the language, the terms, the definitions, controls the debate." There has always been a debate about how much individual liberty you, we, I, have. That is why we were admonished to exercise eternal vigilance. There is no limit to how low the enemies of individual liberty will go in order to bring the masses under their direct control. They are destroying the family, poisoning the minds of schoolchildren, they will try to shift the language too and get everyone using the word citizen when really subject is more descriptive. The ruling elite, the judicial branch and its officers, know the difference and are happy to let you claim your inferior status. At some point it will be necessary for ordinary people to put the ruling elite on notice that we know about the case People v. De La Guerra, we know about the bait-and-switch game being played with the words subject and citizen, and when we use the word citizen, we mean State Citizen---with Rights.
I think next time I am asked regarding my citizenship status, I'd like to utilize the language of 40 Cal 311 and say, it's like this: I am a U.S. citizen as it entitles me to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States in the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad; otherwise I am a Citizen, and a resident, of the State of Virginia.
I would like Virginia, not the administrative province of the U.S. that Virginia seems to have become, but Virginia the State, to create and promote a registry that allows Virginia residents to claim Legal Presence in the State of Virginia, and claim old-fashioned traditional Virginia Citizenship with Rights.
Why bother.
I have no hopes that this would mean much to anyone at least until they studied 40 Cal 311. But isn't it a step in the right direction? Government officials at every level would bristle at the statement, if they even understood it (I believe some would), because it certainly goes against the psychological conditioning and public relations that runs continuously to promote U.S. citizenship as a grand thing. It also attempts reverse the Citizen-to-subject forced migration in status the ruling elite had planned for everyone. At first, if used in court, any judge would bellow: Your words are nonsense! Don't talk that way in my courtroom! But no judge can deny 40 Cal 311 and what it reads. Nor could any governer, or bureaucrat, who would surely push for declarations of U.S. citizen. Those who want libery have no choice but to get it from their allegiance to their State. They will not get it from the central government or the commercial interests that interlock with it.
The time between the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution must have been very interesting. After the Revolution, the Colonies, possessed already of the English Common Law which was established on this continent with the arrival of the first settlers on May 13, 1607 in Jamestown, became States. And although the State expressed sovereignty, the sovereignty of the King was now inherited by the (free, white) people, former subjects of the Crown, who held it jointly, it may be a bit of a reach to say tenants in common, but it gets the point across. The State did not replace the King. The (free, white) people had the power. I have to specify free, white, because I don't wish to create a false impression that everyone was sovereign after the Revolution. There are those who know not everyone was, and would accuse me of at least bad writing or bias if I don't make this clarification. We might add landed to free and white. But this isn't about race relations, though it could quickly become that. Nor is it about amounts of wealth. I shouldn't need to go into further detail in this qualification, the point is that something very special came with State Citizenship, in my opinion, and supported in my citation of 40 Cal 311, that is not enjoyed by U.S. citizens. And if those State Citizens of past times who enjoyed those Powers were free, white, and mostly wealthy, so be it. Today people of all races, creeds, colors, can partake of State Citizenship so long as they take seriously as they have never done before their State Citizenship and, in return for true allegiance, actually hold it (the State) accountable to protect their rights, and back away from U.S. citizenship and its attendant subject status as a matter of fact. How would their lives change? For one example, suppose there's an hurricane and a flood. Afterwards, "officials" start coming around to confiscate firearms. As a 40 Cal 311 subject, you must comply with the order to surrender your firearms. As a Citizen of the State, the officials would need to go away empty handed and stop bothering people. This wouldn't happen if a handful of citizens went this way. The officials would first laugh and then take firearms by force. But if everyone went this way, the "officials" would have no subjects from whom to confiscate firearms. That's just one example.
This sovereignty survived the Articles of Confederation for which the States remained free and independent States. It even survived right up until 1870 which is when 40 Cal 311 was heard. It probably survives today in some way. How, it would be difficult to tell. Some tax resistors have attempted to invoke State Citizenship in order to take themselves outside the jurisdiction of the IRS. Many of those individuals quickly found themselves behind bars. An example is to be found here: LINK. The link points to "freedom package" one of the many sovereignty/redemption products. Don't take action but do try to look it over. Try to read the case citations. I am not endorsing that "freedom package." It may be loaded with errors or nonsense. But I stress, reading the court cases independently would be instructive. You could and should find out for yourself if the Political Rights of State Citizens were incorporated into the status of U.S. citizen. I am not interested in encouraging anyone to a tax revolt. Taxes are not even on my radar screen at this time. I am interested in seeing what happens when citizen-subjects realize they have not the rights they thought and want to pursue their restoration.
The Studies That Started This Column.
If you have wondered how I came across 40 Cal 311, it came out of the research done by tax resistance groups, and I found it when trying to research cititzenship since illegal aliens have been arriving and having so-called anchor babies that supposedly receive U.S. citizenship.
Cynical Tax Protest? No.
The tax researchers, didn't make the case up. I can't blame them for trying to use it. It remains popular to look down on tax resisters who don't pay their fair share. There is a bigger picture than to cynically not pay your taxes while everyone else pays, and pays more because a few are not. Liberty itself is is the big picture. Liberty is at the level of the State, not at the United States national government level. Only State Citizens can access that liberty. Not U.S. subjects. I can't find any other angle to read 40 Cal 311 so that it suggests otherwise. And just because some tax resistors tried unsuccessfully to use 40 Cal 311 to stop their tax liability, that does not mean that others are barred from citing 40 Cal. 311 for other unrelated purposes. If 40 Cal 311 lets people know that subjects exist in this land misnamed as citizens and that those same people are not really State Citizens, and misleading them as to their impression of their rights, then by all means it should be so used.
Quotation: "Those gentlemen, who will be elected senators, will fix themselves in the federal town, and become citizens of that town more than of your state." -George Mason
George Mason was worried that elected senators would be more citizen of "that town," than citizen of their States. Note that it isn't necessarily an either/or proposition. One can have more loyalty to one than the other. George Mason, the man who first fought for the Federal Bill of Rights, author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, considered it a good thing to be more or ultimately a Citizen of your State than to be a citizen of that federal town, the District of Columbia. I should agree--if the citation from People v. De La Guerra is any indication. I will go further to say that what George Mason referred to as being a citizen of that town, is, not only what he thought the Senators would become, but what being a U.S. citizen is today. Little did he know all of us would one day be more U.S. citizens than citizens of our state. And I will also say that why he was worried about their sentiments towards that town, it is that they would begin to act in its interests at the expense of their respective States, it would take on a life of its own and grow into the leviathan it is today. Mason's fears were well justified, they have long since been vindicated.
More coming later, much later. Please check back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have written a couple of articles for Gold-Eagle.com and the URL for my index IS HERE .
Regarding my political outlook: Paleoconservatism
Videos I like:
Aaron Russo, From Freedom To Fascism
Century Of The Self; Edward Bernays"
Short Version - How To Brainwash A Nation; Edward Bernays
Debt AS Money, all money is debt
Mind Control; History Channel. <--- New 9/23/07 --->
IMMIGRATION.
EDUCATION.
Radical Islam
Books; Reading List
A Short History of Paper Money & Banking, Wm. Gouge.
The Mystery of Banking; Murray N. Rothbard. <--- New 9/27/07 --->
