|FORMS: 4.36 PASSPORT AMENDMENT REQUEST|
|RIGHT click here for the Word 97
version of this document
This letter is intended for use by those who have read Chapter 4 of our Great IRS Hoax book and who would like to change or amend their passport so that it identifies them as "non-citizen nationals" instead of statutory "U.S. citizens" under 8 U.S.C. §1401. It should only be used if you have an existing passport that you want updated. If you don't yet have a passport, then you need to use the procedures specified in the Income Tax Freedom Forms and Instructions Area, step 3.13.
Subject: Passport Amendment Request, for passport #________________
1. USA Passport Application Attachment
2. Color Copy of Original Passport, number ____________.
3. Citizenship Questionnaire
I am writing this letter to formally request that you modify or amend my United States of America Passport number _______________ to add an amendment to Page 24 identifying me as a “non-citizen national of the United States” under the authority of 8 U.S.C. §1452. By “United States” I mean “United States of America” (CONSTITUTIONAL “United States”) and not the territorial or STATUTORY “United States” found in most federal statutes such as 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §1109(d). I will explain why in the remainder of this letter.
I have written the Department of State in the past and asked for a “ceritificate of non-citizen national status” under 8 U.S.C. §1452 and they have said that I should just request a passport instead with a special amendment at the end to indicate my status. The generic blue passport I have does not indicate my unique citizen status but simply identifies me with “citizen/national” and I feel it is VERY important to be able to distinguish which of the two that I am. That is what I am doing now: following the advice I was given by your agency. Attached find Enclosure (1) documenting all the details necessary to effect what I am requesting. Enclosure (2) is the passport which I would like modified. Facts pertinent to your determination on this request are as follows:
1. I was born in ___________ (statename) and not within a federal area or possession or within a federal statutory "State" (territory).
2. The definitions of words found in federal law confirm that the word “State” does not include states of the Union under Title 8, Aliens and Nationality:
Table 1: Summary of the meaning of various terms
a. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 648:
"Foreign states. Nations which are outside the United States. Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth, p. 648]
b. Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) §29, legal encyclopedia:
"Generally, the states of the Union sustain toward each other the relationship of independent sovereigns or independent foreign states, except in so far as the United States is paramount as the dominating government, and in so far as the states are bound to recognize the fraternity among sovereignties established by the federal Constitution, as by the provision requiring each state to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the other states..."
2. The Constitution is a contract written by and between the States of the Union and their new servant, the Federal Government. It conveys authority to the federal government over the property under its control and stewardship, which was only the District of Columbia at the time. Since the States wrote it, the word “State” is capitalized because they are the sovereigns. Federal statutes and “acts of Congress” is written by the Congress under the authority of the Constitution. Since the servant, in that case, is writing the law, then it becomes the sovereign over the property under its stewardship, which only includes federal “States” listed in Title 48 of the U.S. Code, to include territories and possessions of the United States only.
3. I was not born in the “continental United States”, which is defined in 8 CFR 215.1 as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. See Enclosure (4), questions 76 through 81 for further details. On the surface, this might appear to be a contradiction, but it is not because the federal government has no police powers inside the states of the Union but it does have such powers within federal States, which are defined in 4 U.S.C. §110(d). Without police powers, the federal government cannot determine the status of persons born in states of the Union. Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890), Reid v. Colorado, 187 U.S. 137 (1902), Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501 (1878), Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 (1884). Federal law relates primarily to the property under its control, which includes the territories and possessions and the District of Columbia and excludes states of the Union for the vast majority of subject matters. The only exceptions are Treason, Counterfeiting, Commerce, slavery, and Piracy. All other subject matters, including citizenship by birth, are reserved to the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
4. The Supreme Court has said the following:
If the federal government has no power in respect to internal affairs of a state, it certainly has no power to determine the citizenship status of persons born there, nor may Congress write any statute in Title 8 that defines the status of persons born in a state of the Union. The Constitution confers federal authority to determine Uniform Rules of Naturalization under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 but it has NO AUTHORITY over citizenship by birth.
If the federal government did have authority over citizenship by birth, it would be a “sheep poacher” in competition with the states, who basically are stealing authority of the persons born there away from the states and “stealing” citizens. Here is an example:
“It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of the United State, that a State may determine the status of persons within its jurisdiction: Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet., 419; Moore v. Illinois, 14 How., 13; 11 Pet., 131; Story Const., §§1098, 1804, 1809.” [Doc. Lonas v. State, 59 Tenn. 287 (1871)]
5. My parents were both “nationals but not citizens of the United States”, because they were born in a state on land that was not ceded to the federal government. The “United States” as used in this case is the same as that used in the Constitution. It does not, however have the same meaning as that used in Title 8 of the U.S. Code, where in that context it means the territories of the United States and the District of Columbia. See Enclosure (4), questions 76 through 81. Neither one of my parents are or were “citizens of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 nor did they ever “intend” or willfully consent to have this status. I demand proof from the government to the contrary. Their status is therefore not defined anywhere directly in Title 8 of the U.S. code, because they were born outside of the jurisdiction and police powers of the federal government, on nonfederal land within a state of the Union. Because neither my parents nor myself ever “intended” to become statutory citizens under 8 U.S.C. §1401, that status cannot be imputed to them because citizenship is a product of BOTH domicile AND intent/consent.
6. 8 U.S.C. §1401 assigns a dual status to persons born in territories of the United States and the District of Columbia. They are simultaneously “nationals” AND “citizens”. A “national” is defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) as a person who owes allegiance to a “state”, and that state is the state of the Union I was born in. Even if you incorrectly believe I am an 8 U.S.C. 1401 citizen/nation, I am perfectly entitled to eliminate that half of dual citizenship I do not consent or volunteer to assume, and you must recognize my right to do so, even if there is no statute or regulation that tells you how to do this. “Expatriation” under 8 U.S.C. §1481 would not accomplish the change I am seeking, because “expatriation” is defined by the supreme court as “the abandonment of nationality and allegiance”, not “citizen” status under 8 U.S.C. 1401. See Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). I do not want to lose my “national” status, but only the imputed “citizen” status under 8 U.S.C. §1401 and it is my right to demand this, and to expect my government to help me achieve the status that I want.
7. To tell me that I can’t change or correct my citizenship status to eliminate any portion I find objectionable, is to admit that the entire country is a slave camp, and that I may not choose the type of citizenship that suits me best. The consequence is that I am compelled to involuntarily be subject to federal jurisdiction, which I have no interest or desire to be.
"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles on which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. 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 lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, 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 itself." [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)]
Slavery is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment and therefore, I must conclude that you have absolutely no delegated authority to deny me this request, because doing so violates the Constitution and the oath you took to support and defend it.
8. My religious beliefs do not permit me to be a privileged “citizen of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 or under any other federal law. Under the First Amendment, you must accommodate my religious beliefs. All citizenship is voluntary and I choose not to have the “citizen” part under 8 U.S.C. 1401 and only have the “national” part.
9. I claim allegiance to both my state and to the confederation of states called the “United States”. The sovereigns in those states are We The People, so I therefore claim allegiance to the sovereigns in the collective states described in the Constitution of the United States.
10. I do not claim allegiance to the federal corporation called the “United States” defined in 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) or the government of the “United States”, but to the sovereigns within the respective body politic, which is the people within the state or country and not the government that serves them.
11. I do not seek the protection of the government of the United States for anything. I do not want to be subject in any respect or degree to federal law and I LOATH federal law. Our rulers at the federal level are a bunch of thieves, liars, and criminals who I want absolutely nothing to do with. The federal government has become a socialist government that is abusing its taxing power to transfer wealth. I do not want to be forced to subsidize its growth like a tumor and a cancer on the body politic and thereby further the ends of socialism or undermine the individual rights of everyone in this once great country. Instead, I want nothing but to be completely left alone by the federal government and to get them out of my life completely and not be subject to their corrupt and usurious laws. You have absolutely no lawful or moral authority to compel me to remain subject to federal jurisdiction, and doing so amounts to slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
I understand that this may be an unusual request, and so I have provided Enclosure (2) to succinctly and thoroughly explain why I believe I qualify for this status from a legal perspective. I have spent considerable time researching this subject and talking to your employees, in order to ensure that I can get what I am asking for, so please be patient with me in this case.
Enclosure (3) has been provided in the event that you have objections to what I am asking to do. I am asking that you complete it as your way to explain to me why you think you can’t do it using the applicable statutes and regulations and court cites. This request is very important to me and so if you are going to deny me this request, I am simply asking that you please take the time to fill in Enclosure (4) to explain to me using the statutes and regulations exactly why you can or can’t do it, so I can understand the legal constraints on your authority and how to get what I am asking for. In addition to filling out Enclosure (4), I would also request that you state the statute and implementing regulation and Supreme Court cite that authorizes the decision you have made and to enter that in the “Explanation” column in the answers section at the end. Government is a creature of the law and can do nothing without the authority of law, so I’m simply asking that you respect the law by telling me what law you are relying on to make your decision.
Finally, I emphasize that I am not interested in an opinion or in a statement of policy, but instead on what law authorizes you to take or not take the action I am asking for by citing the specific statute and implementing regulation that supports your conclusion. Please therefore don’t send a standard form letter to me that answers a question that I never asked, or makes a self-serving statement of policy that is irrelevant to this case.
Thank you for your patience and cooperation and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
I declare under penalty of perjury from without the "United States" (federal territory) and from within the the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746(1) when litigated with a jury trial that the facts and statements made by me in this letter and all attachments are true and correct to the best of my ability.
All rights reserved, UCC 1-308 and its predecessor, UCC 1-207
Please answer the questions below with either an “Admit” or “Deny” in each case, fill out the worksheet at the end with your answers, attach your supporting evidence if any, and return the worksheet to us with your response. Every question you do not answer or rebut shall be deemed to be “Admit” by default.
After each question is a web link where you can see the evidence from the government’s own statutes, regulations, and court rulings which backs up the statement made in each question. Two links are provided for each link. The first is for clicking on if you are viewing this document electronically. The second is the absolute web address if you want to type in the address on your browser and view it on your computer because you are looking at the document in paper form.
1. Admit that the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 in 1856, ruled that negroes were unable to become "citizens of the United States".
2. Admit that the Civil War was fought mainly over citizenship and rights of negroes in the southern states. (common knowledge)
3. Admit that prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, there was no way for a person to become a "citizen of the United States" except by first becoming a citizen of the state they were born in.
4. Admit that prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, in 1868, Congress passed Revised Statutes §1999, establishing that the right of expatriation is absolute and fundamental to the protection of liberty.
5. Admit that the 14th Amendment was alleged by the Secretary of State of the United States to have been ratified in 1868, immediately after the Civil War in the United States.
6. Admit that a large number of the states which are alleged to have ratified the 14th Amendment were occupied by armed troops and had puppet legislatures that replaced the original legislatures and were put into place by the U.S. Congress.
"I cannot believe that any court in full possession of all its faculties, would ever rule that the (14th) Amendment was properly approved and adopted." State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936; Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d. 266. [The court in this case was the Utah Supreme Court.]
8. Admit that one purpose of the 14th Amendment was to give the status of "citizen of the United States" to free negroes in the southern states who otherwise were unable to become citizens of their states.
"...the "undeniable purpose" of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make the recently conferred "citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure," and "to put citizenship beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy," 387 U.S. at 263. Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), a five-to-four holding within the decade and precisely to the opposite effect, was overruled."
"3. Apart from the passing reference to the "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution's Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born:"
"A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. . . ."
"This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States. . . ." As has been noted above, the amendment's "undeniable purpose" was "to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure," and not subject to change by mere statute. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. at 263. See H. Flack, Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 88-94 (1908)."
9. Admit that the 14th Amendment is the authority by which at least one type of "citizen of the United States" is legally defined in the country called the United States.
10. Admit that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states the following:
"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."
11. Admit that the Supreme Court in the case of Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) distinguished the term "subject to their jurisdiction" found in the Thirteenth Amendment as being different from the term "subject to the jurisdiction" found in the Fourteenth Amendment by saying:
“The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude 'within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,' is also significant as showing that there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union. To say that the phraseology of this amendment was due to the fact that it was intended to prohibit slavery in the seceded states, under a possible interpretation that those states were no longer a part of the Union, is to confess the very point in issue, since it involves an admission that, if these states were not a part of the Union, they were still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that '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.' Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to persons born in any place 'subject to their jurisdiction.”
12. Admit that the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, in 1945 ruled that there are three definitions of the term "United States":
"The term [United States] has several meanings. 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 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)]
13. Admit that because there are three distinct and different definitions of "United States", that there could conceivably be more than one type of "citizen of the United States" within federal statutes or "acts of Congress". (common sense)
14. Admit that Constitution does not define which of the three definitions of "United States" applies in the case of the Fourteenth Amendment.
15. Admit that the Fourteenth Amendment only defines one of possibly several types of "citizens of the United States".
16. Admit that the United States Department Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM 1116-1 (d) states that there was no statutory definition of the term "United States" in the context of citizenship and nationality prior to January 13 1941.
17. Admit that the U.S. Supreme Court said in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649:
18. Admit that under the doctrine of Conflict of Laws, no state or nation can exercise penal jurisdiction over persons or property outside of its territorial jurisdiction except by treaty:
"By the law of England and of the United States the penal laws of a country do not reach beyond its own territory [127 U.S. 265, 290] except when extended by express treaty or statute to offenses committed abroad by its own citizens; and they must be administered in its own courts only, and cannot be enforced by the courts of another country. Wheat. Int. Law, (8th Ed.) 113, 121. Chief Justice MARSHALL stated the rule in the most condensed form, as an incontrovertible maxim, 'the courts of no country execute the penal laws of another.' The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66, 123. The only cases in which the courts of the United States have entertained suits by a foreign state have been to enforce demands of a strictly civil nature. [...] The rule that the courts of no country execute the penal laws of another applies, not only to prosecutions and sentences for crimes and misdemeanors, but to all suits in favor of the state for the recovery of pecuniary penalties for any violation of statutes for the protection of its revenue, or other municipal laws, and to all judgments for such penalties. If this were not so, all that would be necessary to give ubiquitous effect to a penal law would be to put the claim for a penalty into the shape of a judgment. Whart. Confl. Law, 833; [127 U.S. 265, 291] West. Pr. Int. Law, (1st Ed.) 388; Pig. Judgm. 209, 210. Lord Kames, in his Principles of Equity, cited and approved by Mr. Justice Story in his Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, after having said: 'The proper place for punishment is where the crime is committed, and no society takes concern in any crime but what is hurtful to itself,' and recognizing the duty to enforce foreign judgments or decrees for civil debts or damages, adds. 'But this includes not a decree decerning for a penalty, because no court reckons itself bound to punish, or to concur in punishing, any delict committed extra territorium.' 2 Kames, Eq. (3d Ed.) 326, 366; Story, Confl. Law, 600, 622." [State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265 (1888)]
19. Admit that 40 U.S.C. §255 denies federal civil and criminal jurisdiction of all "acts of Congress" and federal statutes within a state except by express consent of the state legislature over the area in question.
20. Admit that the federal jurisdiction described in 40 U.S.C. §255 includes jurisdiction to determine the citizenship status of persons born within the state in question. (common sense)
21. Admit that Black's law dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1473 defines the term "territories" as follows:
"Territory: A part of a country separated from the rest, and subject to a particular jurisdiction. Geographical area under the jurisdiction of another country or sovereign power.
A portion of the United States not within the limits of any state, which has not yet been admitted as a state of the Union, but is organized with a separate legislature, and with executive and judicial powers appointed by the President."
22. Admit that the 50 union states of the country called the United States are not territories of the federal government of the United States, but instead are sovereign nations under the Law of Nations, except in respect to those matters specifically delegated to the federal government.
"The States between each other are sovereign and independent. They are distinct and separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and objects of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of each state, when not so yielded up, remain absolute. Congress have never provided for the proof of the laws of the states when they are brought forward in the Courts of the United States, or in the Courts of the states; and they are proved as foreign laws are proved." [Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519; 10 L.Ed. 274 (1839)]
23. Admit that the U.S. Supreme Court said in the case of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94:
"The persons declared [by the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1] to be citizens are ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction." Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
24. Admit that "political jurisdiction" as used above is not the same as "legislative jurisdiction", and that "political jurisdiction" can exist where "legislative jurisdiction" does not.
25. Admit that the legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence, in section 3A Am Jur 2d §2689 defines "U.S. citizens" under federal statutes as follows:
3C Am Jur 2d §2689, Who is born in United States and subject to United States jurisdiction "A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if his or her birth occurs in territory over which the United States is sovereign, even though another country provides all governmental services within the territory, and the territory is subsequently ceded to the other country."
26. Admit that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to establish "an uniform Rule of Naturalization":
"Congress shall have the power...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
27. Admit that nowhere in the Constitution is conferred upon Congress the authority to determine the citizenship status derived from birth in a state of the Union, and that by implication, this matter is to be decided by the states individually under their own laws under the authority of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
28. Admit that the rules of comity prescribe whether the federal government must recognize in Title 8 of the U.S. Code the citizenship status of persons born in states of the Union to parents who were born or naturalized in a state of the Union.
29. Admit that the federal government of the United States has no police powers within states of the Union:
"By the tenth amendment, 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.' Among the powers thus reserved to the several states is what is commonly called the 'police power,'-that inherent and necessary power, essential to the very existence of civil society, and the safeguard of the inhabitants of the state against disorder, disease, poverty, and crime. 'The police power belonging to the states in virtue of their general sovereignty,' said Mr. Justice STORY, delivering the judgment of this court, 'extends over all subjects within the territorial limits of the states, and has never been conceded to the United States.' Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 625. This is well illustrated by the recent adjudications that a statute prohibiting the sale of illuminating oils below a certain fire test is beyond the constitutional power of congress to enact, except so far as it has effect within the United States (as, for instance, in the District of Columbia) and without the limits of any state; but that it is within the constitutional power of a state to pass such a statute, even as to oils manufactured under letters patent from the United States. U. S. v. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41; Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501 . [135 U.S. 100, 128] The police power includes all measures for the protection of the life, the health, the property, and the welfare of the inhabitants, and for the promotion of good order and the public morals. It covers the suppression of nuisances, whether injurious to the public health, like unwholesome trades, or to the public morals, like gambling-houses and lottery tickets. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 62, 87; Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U.S. 659 ; Phalen v. Virginia, 8 How. 163, 168; Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814 . This power, being essential to the maintenance of the authority of local government, and to the safety and welfare of the people, is inalienable. As was said by Chief Justice WAITE, referring to earlier decisions to the same effect: 'No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. The supervision of both these subjects of governmental power is continuing in its nature, and they are to be dealt with as the special exigencies of the moment may require. Government is organized with a view to their preservation, and cannot divest itself of the power to provide for them. For this purpose the largest legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more than the power itself.' Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814 , 819. See, also, Butchers' Union, etc., Co. v. Crescent City, etc., Co., 111 U.S. 746, 753 , 4 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 652; New Orleans Gas Co. v Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S. 650, 672 , 6 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 252; New Orleans v. Houston, 119 U.S. 265, 275 , 7 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 198.
All rights are held subject to the police power of the state. Whatever differences of opinion may exist as to the extent and boundaries of the police power, and however difficult it may be to render a satisfactory definition of it, there seems to be no doubt that it does extend to the protection of the lives, health, and property of the citizens, and to the preservation of good order and the public morals. The legislature cannot, by any contract, divest itself of the power to provide for these objects. They belong emphatically to that class of objects which demand the application of the maxim, salus populi suprema lex; and they are to be attained and provided for by such appropriate means as the legislative discretion may devise. That discretion can no more be bargained away than the power itself. " [Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890)]
30. Admit that federal taxation is a "police power", because it substantially affects the safety, health, welfare, and morals of the people who pay it.
31. Admit that the police power of the federal government extends exclusively over the "federal zone", which includes federal territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, and enclaves within states of the Union by default, unless a clear intent is expressed to the contrary.
“While states are not sovereign in true sense of term but only quasi sovereign, yet in respect of all powers reserved to them they are supreme and independent of federal government as that government within its sphere is independent of the states.”
"It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation." [Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]
"If Congress is authorized to act in a field, it should manifest its intention clearly. It will not be presumed that a federal statute was intended to supersede the exercise of the power of the state unless there is a clear manifestation of intention to do so. The exercise of federal supremacy is not lightly to be presumed." Schwartz v. Texas, 344 U.S. 199, 202-203 (1952). [413 U.S. 405, 414]
32. Admit that because the federal government has no "police power" inside states of the Union under the Constitution, then the terms "United States" and "State" within federal statutes, including Title 8 of the U.S. Code and the Internal Revenue Code, must necessarily imply and refer exclusively to the "federal zone" by default, but not necessarily in every case.
33. Admit that in the event that laws cannot be interpreted by common men of ordinary intelligence, then the Supreme Court has said that such laws violate due process of law and are therefore "void for vagueness":
"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." Connally v General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926).
34. Admit that the term "national" is statutorily defined as follows, from 8 U.S.C. §1101:
(a) (21) The term ''national'' means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
35. Admit that a "U.S. national" is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1408 as follows:
8 U.S.C. Sec. 1408. - Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth
Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth:
(2) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had a residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person;
(Note that the "United States" term as used in the above section refers to the federal United States, also called the "federal zone".)
36. Admit that "U.S. national" is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22) as follows:
(a) (22) The term ''national of the United States'' means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent [but not necessarily exclusive] allegiance to the United States.
37. Admit that the term "naturalization" is statutorily defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(23) as follows:
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(23) naturalization defined
"(a)(23) The term ''naturalization'' means the conferring of nationality [e.g. "national" and not "citizen", which means "U.S. national"] of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever."
38. Admit that even though 8 U.S.C. §1408 does not prescribe the citizenship status of persons born in a state of the Union to parents who were also born or naturalized in a state of the Union and who did not reside ever in the federal United States, it nevertheless still could be true that such persons are "nationals but not citizens of the United States" under that section.
39. Admit that all persons defined as "citizens of the United States" under 8 U.S.C. §1401 are also "U.S. nationals":
8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401. - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
40. Admit that to be a "national of the United States" could also mean that one is not a "citizen of the United States" under federal statutes:
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)
The term ''national of the United States'' means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
41. Admit that federal income taxes are "imposed" upon "U.S. citizens" and "nonresident aliens" with U.S. source income in Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.
42. Admit that the term "U.S. citizen" is nowhere defined in Title 26 of the U.S. Code.
43. Admit that the only place in 26 CFR where the term "citizen of the United States" is defined is in 26 CFR 31.3121(e )-1, and that definition is as follows:
26 CFR 31.3121(e)-1 State, United States, and citizen.
(b)…The term 'citizen of the United States' includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
44. Admit that a "nonresident alien" is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) as:
"An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A))."
45. Admit that a "U.S. national" who lives outside of territories of the United States as previously defined is neither a "U.S. citizen" nor a resident of the territories of the United States.
46. Admit that the "U.S. national" as described in the previous question is a "nonresident alien" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B).
47. Admit that the act of either naturalizing or remaining a citizen or a national in United States is a voluntary act as ruled by the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank as follows:
“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a marshal of the United States is unlawfully resisted while executing the process of the courts within a State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United States is violated by the resistance, and that of the State by the breach of peace, in the assault. So, too, if one passes counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the United States and the State: the United States, because it discredits the coin; and the State, because of the fraud upon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship [92 U.S. 542, 551] which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. 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. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) [emphasis added]
48. Admit that Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, on page 1575, defines the term "voluntary" as follows:
49. Admit that once a person becomes either a citizen or a national of the United States, the government cannot unilaterally remove either status without the voluntary consent and participation of the citizen or national.
50. Admit that because the term "United States", according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652 (1945)., has three possible definitions, then the act of expatriation can include renouncing more than one type of citizenship.
52. Admit that Title 8, Aliens and Nationality, does not prescribe or define procedures for renouncing ones status as a "citizen of the United States" under 8 U.S.C. §1401 without also renouncing one's nationality.
53. Admit that even though there are no prescribed procedures for renouncing "citizen of the United States" status under 8 U.S.C. §1401 without renouncing "nationality", that does not mean that the act of doing so is not allowed or permitted by law.
55. Admit that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) form N-400 is the proper form to be used in order to become "naturalized".
57. Admit that even though the term "U.S. national" is not used on the N-400 form, if it were substituted everywhere that the term "U.S. citizen" is used, this would constitute adequate qualification to be naturalized as a "U.S. national" but not necessarily a "U.S. citizen".
58. Admit that the INS N-400 form does not define which of the three definitions of "United States" is being used.
59. Admit that because the meaning of "United States" on the form is not defined and because "U.S. citizen" is everywhere used and "U.S. national" is not used, then there is at least a presumption on the part of the applicant that they are applying to become a "U.S. citizen" rather than a "U.S. national".
60. Admit that the term "naturalization" is statutorily defined as meaning the process of conferring "nationality" and not necessarily "citizen of the United States" status under 8 U.S.C. §1401, upon the applicant. (see question 14.36 earlier)
61. Please describe in detail for me how a person who was naturalized to obtain "U.S. national status" also obtains "U.S. citizen" status even though there is no statute authorizing this. If you think there is a law authorizing this, then please identify specifically what that law is.
62. Admit that the Department of State form DS-11 is the form used for obtaining a U.S. passport.
63. Admit that blocks 15 and 16 of the DS-11 form have a check box for "U.S. citizen" but do not provide an option for "U.S. national", even though this too is a valid status which qualifies for a passport.
64. Admit that 26 U.S.C. §6039E appears to authorize a penalty of $500 for failure to provide a social security number on a passport applications.
65. Admit that without an implementing regulation, 26 U.S.C. §6039E cannot be enforced by the Secretary of the Treasury or the IRS.
66. Admit that there is no implementing regulation authorizing penalties against natural persons for failure to supply a Social Security Number on the DS-11 form. If you believe otherwise, please identify the regulation.
67. Admit that the reason there are no implementing regulations applying penalties against natural persons in the case of 26 U.S.C. §6039E is because the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, forbids Bills of Attainder, which are penalties applied without a judicial trial.
68. Admit that the First Amendment right of Free Speech includes the right to NOT communicate certain facts to the government without fear of penalty or reprisal.
69. Admit that penalizing a person for not providing an SSN on a DS-11 form, if it were authorized by law, would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by penalizing a person for refusing to communicate with their government.
70. Admit that because there are no penalties for failure to provide a Social Security Number on the DS-11 form without implementing regulations, then the furnishing of the SSN on the application is completely voluntary.
72. Admit that any mention of 26 U.S.C. §6039E and any penalties on the form, because there are no implementing regulations, constitutes a constructive fraud to fool the applicant into thinking that the furnishing of the number is subject to penalties that don't really exist.
73. Admit that the providing of an SSN on the DS-11 form could create a possibly false "presumption" on the part of the government that the applicant is a "U.S. citizen", when in fact he may be a "U.S. national" and not a "U.S. citizen".
(g) Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons--(1) General rule--(i) Social security number. A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual. A person may establish a different status for the number by providing proof of foreign status with the Internal Revenue Service under such procedures as the Internal Revenue Service shall prescribe, including the use of a form as the Internal Revenue Service may specify. Upon accepting an individual as a nonresident alien individual, the Internal Revenue Service will assign this status to the individual's social security number.
74. Admit that a "U.S. person" is defined as follows:
76. Admit that the term "United States" is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(38) for the purposes of federal citizenship status under Title 8 of the United States Code:
77. Admit that the phrase in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(38) above which says "Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States" is a grouping of similar objects, which implies that they are all to be regarded as territories of the United States under the rule of statutory construction "Ejusdem generis" listed below:
78. Admit that the term "continental United States" is defined in 8 CFR §215.1(f) as follows, for the purposes of Title 8 of the United States Code:
79. Admit that the term "State" is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(36) for the purposes of federal citizenship status under Title 8 of the United States Code:
80. Admit that the rule of statutory construction entitled "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" prevents us from interpreting the word "includes" above in a way that adds or enlarges anything to the items enumerated in the definition of "States" above or adding anything but items of the same class as those listed to the definition.
81. Admit that the result of substituting the definition for the term "State" from 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(36) into the phrase "several States" found in the definition of the term "continental United States" in 8 CFR §215.1(f) results in the following definition for "continental United States" applying to Title 8 of the United States Code. NOTE: Substituted information appears in red:
82. Admit that based on questions 76 through 81 above, a reasonable person would conclude that the term "United States" as used in Title 8 of the U.S. Code does not include states of the Union, because all of the "States" listed in the definition for "United States" are federal States and territories, and not states of the Union.
83. Admit that the following definitions of terms listed in the table apply within the Constitution and Federal Law by default, based on the previous questions:
Table 1: Summary of the meaning of various terms used in the Constitution and federal law
a. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 648:
b. Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) §29, legal encyclopedia:
2. The Constitution is a contract written by and between the States of the Union and their new servant, the Federal Government. It conveys authority to the federal government over the property under its control and stewardship, which was only the District of Columbia at the time. Since the States wrote it, the word “State” is capitalized because they are the sovereignes. Federal statutes and “acts of Congress” is written by the Congress under the authority of the Constitution. Since the servant, in that case, is writing the law, then it becomes the sovereign over the prpoperty under its stewardship, which only includes federal “States” listed in Title 48 of the U.S. Code, to include territories and possessions of the United States only.
84. Admit that there are two political jurisdictions within the United States the country: 1. The States of the Union united under the Constitution; 2. The territories and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.
85. Admit that one’s citizenship determines which of the above two to political jurisdictions a person belongs to. (common knowledge)
86. Admit that persons born in territories of the United States or the District of Columbia are not citizens within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, section 1.
87. Admit that people born in the District of Columbia or the territories of the United States are “citizens of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. §1401.
88. Admit that a “citizen of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 and a “citizen of the United States” under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment are therefore not equivalent.
89. Admit that the reason that a “citizen of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. 1401 and a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment are not equivalent is because each of these two contexts presupposes a different definition of the term “United States” as defined by the Supreme Court.
90. Admit that the two political jurisdictions within our country do not have governments that are identical in form. Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution, for instance, guarantees a “republican form of government” to the states of the Union, while no such Constitutional limitation exists for territories and possessions of the United States.
91. Admit that the government of the states of the Union is republican in form while the government of the territories and possiessions is a legislative democracy which is not required by the Constitution to be “republican in form”.
92. Admit that inhabitants of the federal zone are not protected by the Bill of Rights while those living in states of the Union are.
93. Admit that the character and nature of the people in either political jurisdiction is fundamentally different because of the political and legal differences between them.
94. Admit that the two political groups of people: 1. Inhabitants of the States of the Union; 2. Inhabitants of the federal zone… do not qualify as “peers” in the context of jury service under the Sixth Amendment. Reason: Those who enjoy Constitutionally protected rights and live under a Republic do not have the same attitude and values as those who live under a pure legislative democracy and have no such rights.
95. Admit that if 8 U.S.C. §1401 includes persons born in states of the Union on land that is not ceded to the federal government, then there is no way to distinguish between people in each of the two political jurisdictions from a U.S. citizenship standpoint.
96. Admit that without the ability to distinguish between people in each of the two political jurisdictions under federal law, there is no way to assemble a “jury of peers” as required by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
97. Admit that a “citizen” under federal law is a person born in a territory of the United States or the District of Columbia while a “citizen” under state law is a person born in a state of the Union and that these two types of “citizens” are not equivalent either politically or legally.
CITIZENSHIP QUESTIONAIRE ANSWERS
Please enter your answers to each question in the box provided by putting your initials in either the “Admit” box or the “Deny” box. In the “Evidence” column, enter the Constitutional provision, statute, court ruling, and/or implementing regulation upon which that determinatino is based.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the answers to the questions above are consistent with prevailing statutes and regulations governing the Department of State. I understand that I will not be held personally liable in any capacity for the answers provided here.
Witness: _______________________________________ Date:__________________________