Free Inhabitant

The 1901 Downes vs Bidwell decision and later the 1945 Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt decision addressed the latter two classes of (c)Citizenship: 

A TERRITORIAL citizen has no rights. A TERRITORIAL citizen is, simply, SUBJECT to The Congress. A SUBJECT IS A SLAVE.    A state Citizen, on the other hand, is also subject to the Congress, BUT, with a Stipulation: ” 

A state Citizen has Rights.   A State Citizen enjoys The Congress ‘…bound by the chains of the constitution’ when legislating over the state citizen.  A state Citizen is differentiated from a territorial citizen in writing by the capitalization of the letter “C” in Citizenship for a state Citizen and the use of lower case for the territorial citizenship in legal writings.

The *American class is NOT a class of citizenship and is NEVER discussed by government today.  The *American class has Rights provided by YaHuWaH, The All Mighty ONE, Whom our Founding Fathers called ‘Providence’.

HOWEVER…..

EVERYTHING, you think about that relates to ‘freedom’ is ensconced in these people.

Sovereignty was first recognized by the high Court in this case.

CHISHOLM, Ex’r. versus GEORGIA.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 2 U.S. 419; 1 L. Ed. 440; 1793 U.S.

LEXIS 249; 2 Dall. 419

“To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown.  There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety.   But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained [***86] and established that Constitution.  They might have announced themselves “SOVEREIGN” people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.”

“As the State has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the Government has often claimed precedence of the State; and to this perversion in the Second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning sovereignty owe their existence.”

Sovereignty was defined and those who are sovereign were identified by this case; and, it is the standing law on sovereignty today.

Supreme Court in DRED SCOTT v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), where the High Court stated, in relevant part:  “…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…”

“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 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 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.” (emphasis added) Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, at 406.

Even the States recognize this sovereignty.

R. W. Kemper v. The State,

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

63 Tex. Crim. 1; 138 S.W. 1025; 1911 Tex. Crim. App.

LEXIS 365

“The rule in America is that the American people are the sovereign, and in them is lodged all power, and the agencies of government possess no authority save that which is delegated to them by the people…”.

Also, see Perry v. United States,

294 US 330, 353 (1935), “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 declared.”

So, what is the big picture here?

When we were Colonists and then formed the various states of The Union, we recognized that ‘

Is there a difference between being an American and a U.S. citizen, in your opinion?

Michael Edward, Facilitator at www.AmericansRestoringAmerica.com (2005-present)Answered Dec 19, 2018

YOU WON’T LIKE THIS, HOWEVER I QUOTE THE LAW AND AM NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU FANTASIZE . . .

U.S. Citizenship

The US citizen

A US citizen does not have any rights.

“…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

Defendants’ error lies in assuming that the right to vote is an essential right of citizenship. The proposition is beguiling, but it will not stand analysis. The only absolute and unqualified right of citizenship is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States; a citizen cannot be either deported or denied reentry. The Supreme Court explained in Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627,

“Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an “individual entity.”

Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.

“…it might be correctly said that there is 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.” Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,…..”

The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.

“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the “citizenship” to the agencies of government.”

City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

“Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State.” Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905

and “US citizens” can even murder their unborn children by committing the common law crime of infanticide, and because the unborn are NOT “persons”, then they are by definition State Citizens, which means the BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against the American sovereignty, and this is proof that it has nothing to do with race, and has everything to do with slavery;

“The unborn are not included within the definition of “person” as used in the 14th Amendment.” Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court, 410 US 13, 35L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973

“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957,

<<<<<<<>>>>>>>

There are two SCOTUS decisions that deal with 2 of the 5 status types of people on the soil South of Canada and North of Mexico; illegal alien, legal alien, *American, TERRITORIAL citizen, and STATE Citizen.

The Bidwell decision and later the Hooven decision addressed the latter two classes of (c)Citizenship. A TERRITORIAL citizen has no rights. A TERRITORIAL citizen is SUBJECT to The Congress. A SUBJECT IS A SLAVE. A state Citizen, on the other hand, has Rights provided by YaHuWaH, The All Mighty ONE, Whom our Founding Fathers called ‘Providence’. State Citizens are differentiated from territorial citizens by the capitalization of the letter “C” in Citizenship for a state Citizen and the use of lower case for the territorial citizenship in legal writings.

The *American class is NOT a class of citizenship and is NEVER discussed by government today.

HOWEVER…..

EVERYTHING, you think about that relates to ‘freedom’ is ensconced in these people.

Sovereignty was first recognized by the high Court in this case.

CHISHOLM, Ex’r. versus GEORGIA.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 2 U.S. 419; 1 L. Ed. 440; 1793 U.S.

LEXIS 249; 2 Dall. 419

“To the Constitution of the United States the term

SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown.  There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety.   But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained [***86] and established that Constitution.  They might have announced themselves “SOVEREIGN” people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious

declaration.”

“As the State has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the Government has often claimed precedence of the State; and to this perversion in the Second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning sovereignty owe their existence.”

Sovereignty was defined and those who are sovereign were identified by this case; and, it is the standing law on sovereignty today.

Supreme Court in DRED SCOTT v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), where the High Court stated, in relevant part:

@ 404

“…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…”

“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 ME 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 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.” (emphasis added) Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, at 406.

Even the States recognize this sovereignty.

R. W. Kemper v. The State,

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

63 Tex. Crim. 1; 138 S.W. 1025; 1911 Tex. Crim. App.

LEXIS 365

“The rule in America is that the American people are the sovereign, and in them is lodged all power, and the agencies of government possess no authority save that which is delegated to them by the people…”.

Also, see Perry v. United States,

294 US 330, 353 (1935), “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 declared.”