|FORMS: 4.29 REBUTTAL LETTER IN RESPONSE TO DENIAL OF "REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF NON-CITIZEN NATIONAL STATUS" BY DEPT. OF STATE|
click here for the Word 97
version of this document
Related articles and links:
The letter below is a rebuttal to the letter appearing under EVIDENCE, item 14.3. The letter rebuts a letter from the Dept. of State denying the applicant a "certificate of non-citizen national status" based on earlier versions of our "Request for Certificate of non-Citizen National Status" found in forms 4.13 and 4.22. It was submitted by one of our readers.
<<CITY>>, <<STATE>> <<ZIP>>
Ms. Sharon Palmer-Royston
Chief – Legal Division
Office of Passport Policy & Advisory Services
United States Department of State
Washington, District of Columbia 20520
Re: Letter dated August 7, 2003 (Declined Request for Certificate of Non-Citizen National Status)
I am a natural-born ____________(statename) Citizen as well as a natural-born United States national, but I am not and nor have I ever been as a matter of fact, a United States (U.S.) citizen. As the United States Code provides, I have correctly applied for and I am entitled to receive a “non-citizen U.S. national certificate”. Since you have referred to section 308(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [Title 8 U.S.C. § 1408] in your last correspondence, I have included same for your convenience below:
Your letter specifically refers to (1) above explaining non-citizen US nationals born in an outlying possession of the United States. According to Section 1101 (38) the term “outlying possessions of the United States” means American Samoa and Swains Island. I have never claimed to have had a natural birth in American Samoa or Swains Island, nor does my birth certificate that you reference indicate such a fact.
The fact is that I am a national, but non citizen of the United States per item (2) of section 1401 of the United States Code as indicated above. I was 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.
According to Section 1101 (38), the term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
According to Title 8 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 215.1 (Definitions) the term “continental United States” means the District of Columbia and the several States, except Alaska and Hawaii. Clearly, “continental United States” means the Federal States, not the 50 states of the union.
According to Title 4 of the United States Code, (FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES) Chapter 4 (THE STATES) Section 110(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
Below is a further clarification of the meaning of “states” as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of O’Donohue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933), where they define what is not a “state”:
According to your own reference materials, specifically 7 FAM 1100 “ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF US CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY”, it explains the following under 7 FAM 1111.1:
In addition, your own reference materials also explain a landmark Supreme Court case regarding U.S. citizenship. According to 7 FAM 1116.2-1(b) Subject at Birth to U.S. Law:
Approximately 35 years after the Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme unimpeachably elucidates in O’Donohue (1933):
According to Social Security Administration (SSA) publication GN 00303.120 Who Is A U.S. Citizen, it explains under Policy Principle (A)(1) “ONE OF THE 50 STATES OR D.C.”:
Since “State” clearly has a capital letter “S”, it is a Federal State, and as such, part of the 50 States of the United States, not part of the 50 states of the union for the United States of America.
In order to be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., an individual must be under the purview of the 14th Amendment [see SSA publication GN 00303.100 U.S. Citizenship (B)(5)], and Wong Kim Ark (1898) clearly does not apply to me because I was not born within a U.S. territory. I declare herein that I am a non-citizen U.S. national as such is described in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(21), §1101(a)(22)(B), and §1408(2).
I now retain, will at all times in the future retain, and always have retained my natural born status of a Citizen of one of the several union States of America under the Constitution and law, and my Citizenship in these United States of America. I preserve all my unalienable Rights that are inherent from my Creator, at all times. I waive no rights at any time, including by operation of any implied contract asserted by the government. As a Natural Born Sovereign Citizen of the state, I have the same measure of citizenship in my country as our founding fathers and early citizens had, including Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, all of whom had no 14th Amendment citizenship because there was no 14th Amendment at the time they were alive.
I assert that your statement in paragraph three (3) of your letter dated August 7, 2003, “In light of the aforementioned facts [not born in American Samoa or Swains Island, hence you are not a United States non-citizen national] the Department of State must decline to issue you a Certificate…” is a denial of rights and privileges as a national per Section 1503(b) of the United States Code:
Therefore, I am resubmitting my personal check, number 579, in the amount of $35.00 (that you dishonored by your unacceptable return) to the Department of State for my Certificate of Non-citizen U.S. national Status, as provided by law. Your dishonor of my commercial presentment is noted and not excused. Your own letter dated August 7, 2003 confirms that I was not born in the Federal State called “State of New Jersey” but the union state “New Jersey”. Note also that this was the same distinction used in Wong Kim Ark (1898) in that the basis of his undisputed claim for being a U.S. citizen was that he was born in the “State of California”, not the “California Republic”:
“The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California…”
I, do hereby declare my right to expatriate as absolute and declare that I have already expatriated from the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia and thereby voluntarily relinquish my any res in trust, existing by operation of any presumptions about my citizenship, to the foreign jurisdiction known as the municipal corporation (see Black’s 5th) of the District of Columbia, a democracy, and thereby return to the Constitutional Republic envisioned by our founding fathers. Indeed, the matter of fact as well as the matter of law substantiating that the United States is a municipal corporation, held in specific contradistinction to the United States of America, a union of the 50 states of America, is manifest within the 28 United States Code § 3002 (15):
The words “corporation”, “entity”, and “instrumentality” are ens legis; creatures of the law, artificial beings such as a corporation, deriving its existence entirely from the law. Black’s 5th defines “corporation”, “entity”, and “instrumentality” as used in the context of 28 United States Code § 3002 (15) as follows:
It is hoped that this letter has provided the necessary clarification supporting my request for a non-citizen U.S. national certificate. It is understood that since our laws compose a cavernous library extending over 80 linear miles demanding sizeable and ever increasing shelf-space, that additional points are sometimes needed to explain legitimate albeit not common demands for performance. This letter is a second request for a non-citizen U.S. national status certificate to be timely issued to me from the U.S. Secretary of State.
Enclosures: Personal Check, number 597, in the amount of $35.00
Copy of your letter dated ______________(date)