# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  State Citizen vs. U.S. citizen

## DamianTV

A long time ago, someone explained to me that there was a monster of a difference between being a State Citizen and a U.S. citizen, and I'll do my best to recall this from over 10 years ago but here it goes.

A State Citizen is a citizen of one of the several States of the United States of America and is empowered with full Constitutional Rights.

A U.S. citizen is the equivilant of being a resident in the District of Colombia (Washington DC isnt a state) and has NO Constititional Rights, only civil rights.

There was some other stuff on like how to get out of paying income tax that he tied to this and since it appears to have other purposes I'll include that bit of the story as well.  

A State Citizen is not required to pay Income Tax.  A U.S. citizen is.  Also explained that having a Social Security Number makes you a U.S. citizen and are thus forced to pay Income Tax and since the lower case citizen is not protected by Constitutional Rights, is not entitled to have Representation on his Taxation.  

Also noted, and I figured this out myself, but your Drivers License Number IS your Social Security Number.  No IFs ANDs or BUTs about it.  The schema has since changed in Nevada but here we had a relatively easy code to crack.  The last two numbers are the year you were born, drop them, then subtract 26 from the first two numbers, and divide by two.  I didnt believe it till I saw it, then I tried it on every persons Drivers License I could get to give it to me, especially the people that told me they requested that their SSN not be put on their drivers license, and I was pretty damn amazed at how upset people got at me for telling them they were at risk and asked if the magic number I showed them was in fact their SSN and it was.  Now back to the point of the story, it now appears pretty evident that you MUST have a SSN to get a Drivers License.  Period.  I even asked the DMV, and about their whole number scheme and the lady there just about $#@! her pants when I showed her my SSN out of the drivers license and asked her to try it on hers.  About 2 years after that they changed the whole drivers license number format.  But back on topic, again, being that a State Citizen had the constitutional right to travel, and a U.S. citizen did NOT.

Ok, more stuff Im recalling as typing this out.  A U.S. Citizen has their name printed on all forms in all capital characters and is not recognized as a proper person.  BOB SMITH is not Bob Smith's name, Bob Smith with a capital upper case first character and small charaters is the proper way to spell Bob Smiths name.  And that also applied to the difference between the capitalization between State Citizen where Citizen being a proper person and a State both being capitalized, where U.S. even by itself as an abbreviation is not a proper way to identify the United States which it obviously stands for but that by itself makes any forms referring to the United States as the U.S. invalid, and last but not least U.S. citizen where citizen is NOT capitalized again reinforces that the person it represents is not a proper person, or a person with Constitutional Rights.  Look on any job application.  Are you a U.S. citizen?  It never asks are you a State Citizen.  He was right about that.  But also said that by so much as saying you are a US Citizen that you waive all of your constititional rights.  Like anyone has any anyway.

Then theres the Admirality Flag.  Our standard Stars and Stripes Old Glory flag with Gold Fringe.  Basically it means maratime or military occupation, but the result is that Military Law is applied in courtrooms where flags with gold fringe are displayed, not common law.






> MILITARY FLAG WITH THE GOLD FRINGE
> 
> Martial Law Flag "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military. The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.


----

Ok end of that story.  But just out of curiousity, and it may sound like nitpicking, but how much truth is there in any of this?

----------


## Danke

There is some truth WRT common law.

But forget about citizenship having to do with the Income Tax.

If, as an example, a German national is over here working for the State Department, his salary is taxable.  And so is that of a State Citizen.  It is the source from which one's salary is derived that determines if his earnings are to be considered "_wages_" and hence defined as _taxable income._


Now, lets take a "U.S. Citizen" living abroad working for a foreign company.

His salary is not taxable income to the U.S. if he chooses to pay the local salary tax.

But if he chooses to take advantage of a tax treaty between the U.S. and that country, a benefit provided to him by the U.S., then he now has privileged earnings, i.e. *taxable income*.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Some states may use the social security number -either explicitly or implicitly- in the drivers license number but I don't see that in California.  There are not enough digits.

----------


## torchbearer

This was voted into our state LP platform, and we mean every word of it:





> *Citizenship*
> 
> 
> We hold that all Men born in Louisiana, or in any one of the several United States, now domiciled in Louisiana, regardless of race or gender, are Citizens of Louisiana, and enjoy all of the benefits, rights, powers, authorities, prerogatives, and privileges of a sovereign.  At no time is any Citizen of Louisiana in any way subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, while within the territory of Louisiana.

----------


## DamianTV

Hmm, noticing the capitalization in the quote there, where also Citizen is capital C and I like that its not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Does the california drivers license number contain any letters in it?  I guess its not really a NUMBER if it has letters but you know what I mean...  if they use letters they could be using hex digits like a=10 b=11 etc...

----------


## torchbearer

> Hmm, noticing the capitalization in the quote there, where also Citizen is capital C and I like that its not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Does the california drivers license number contain any letters in it?  I guess its not really a NUMBER if it has letters but you know what I mean...  if they use letters they could be using hex digits like a=10 b=11 etc...


Every plank went through a thorough floor debate, down to every word, and how every word was to appear.
And we mean it with all sincerity.

----------


## torchbearer

You can view our new platform here: http://louisianalibertarianparty.org...d=67&Itemid=46

I'm very proud of it.




> *Platform
> of the
> Libertarian Party of Louisiana*
> 
> adopted in convention April 19th, 2008
> 
> *note - in conjunction with this language, the convention also adopted a new section of Article 10 Section 5 to the State Party Constitution which stipulates that the platform must be composed of two parts, one of general principles from a state focus or jurisdiction, and a second of specific policy proposals on pertinent and current issues facing the state based on the principles in the first section.  While a policy plank on education was debated, it was postponed for further refinement until the next convention.  As such, only the general principles have been adopted to date.
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Hmm, noticing the capitalization in the quote there, where also Citizen is capital C and I like that its not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Does the california drivers license number contain any letters in it?  I guess its not really a NUMBER if it has letters but you know what I mean...  if they use letters they could be using hex digits like a=10 b=11 etc...



One letter and six digits.  A social security number has nine digits so if the letter stood for two numbers, you are still one short. None of the numbers has any relationship to either my date of birth or SSN. I think it is random- sequentially issued based on when the license was issued and perhaps where.  Probably something like the letter represents the part of the state it was issued and the number meaning that you were the 987,909th person to get one there (not my real number- just random typing).  Some states may do it differently. I used to have to check IDs occasionally and some states do (or at least did) use the actual SSN as the driver's license number.  They have probably had to change that.

----------


## DamianTV

I found something earlier about a 2004 anti terror bill something or other now require that the numbers actually be different.  So it probably is a different number now and unrelated, but it wasnt always that way.

@torchbearer, Im damn proud of you guys, you did a helluva thing there.

----------


## torchbearer

thanks

----------


## LittleLightShining

I remember my dad talking about a lot of the stuff in the OP years ago, especially the bit about the flag. On primary election day I was working to check in voters and was sitting next to a woman who was a member of DAR and we were talking about the flag. I asked her about the fringe in a sort of nonchalant way and she explained to me that the fringe was the "decoration Flag" used for marches and parades. I asked her why all the flags in courthouses had fringe and she said she didn't know but it was basically just a fancy version of the regular flag.

I don't think she knows what she was talking about. 


torchbearer, the platform is a thing to behold. Great job to you and your fellow patriots! This is something that you would need to pass through the legislature though, correct? In order to make it binding?


Oh yeah, another thing I vaguely remember my dad said was that when you sign your name on income tax forms and elsewhere you sign in a box. If you sgn anything in a box it somehow connects you to the U.S. Virgin Islands? Any truth to this?

----------


## torchbearer

> torchbearer, the platform is a thing to behold. Great job to you and your fellow patriots! This is something that you would need to pass through the legislature though, correct? In order to make it binding?



Our platform is our vision of proper government as a libertarian in Louisiana.
All our candidates support this platform.
You like the platform, vote for our candidates, and when we get majority, we promise to put this platform into government practice and policy.
That is what it means. Its our manifesto to our state government.

----------


## Danke

> Oh yeah, another thing I vaguely remember my dad said was that when you sign your name on income tax forms and elsewhere you sign in a box. If you sgn anything in a box it somehow connects you to the U.S. Virgin Islands? Any truth to this?


No, not the Virgin Island, but Puerto Rico! (jk)

Sign away, it is just a jurat attesting to the information you are providing.

----------


## torchbearer

another gem:



> Accountability
> 
> All public officials, elected or otherwise are fully and personally, legally and financially accountable to the people. Non elected positions should be bonded, and All Officials should be subject to a Grand Jury of the People, assembled for the purpose, should they be deemed to have violated their oath of office, the law, or enjoy personal benefit while acting under color of law. All proceedings of government, in any form or fashion whatsoever, should be open to the public, either at the time of their occurrence or by publishing of their activities.

----------


## torchbearer

> No, not the Virgin Island, but Puerto Rico! (jk)
> 
> Sign away, it is just a jurat attesting to the information you are providing.


Basically, they are forcing you to sign a sworn statement/affidavit that they will use against you in the court of law.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> another gem:


Love this! 




> Basically, they are forcing you two sign a sworn statement/affidavit that they will use against you in the court of law.


Oh, ok.  Which is pretty much what it looks like anyway.

----------


## Danke

> Basically, they are forcing you two sign a sworn statement/affidavit that they will use against you in the court of law.


How are "they" forcing you to do any such thing?

----------


## torchbearer

> How are "they" forcing you to do any such thing?


That whole prison thing is quite compelling.

----------


## torchbearer

> That whole prison thing is quite compelling.


also, my employer won't give me my paycheck unless i sign a statement attesting to what i have made.
I just stopped picking up my checks.

----------


## NaT805

> But forget about citizenship having to do with the Income Tax.


They only have jurisidiction over you to tax your income if you consent to it by becoming a US Citizen. (SSN)

Tax law is under the statutes.  26 U.S.C.

Common law and Statute law are different.

As a sovereign you're only bound by common law, not statutes.  Only your "person" is responsible to follow statutes, and the legal definition of "person" is a "corporation".  

This is a canadian film, as far as I know everything he talks about applies to the United States except the "Claim of Right" which is from English law. (We declared independence, remember?  )  Talks about sovereign, legal, lawful, statutes, law, person...etc.

The Magnificent Deception Part 1 of 2 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...25693468031456

The Magnificent Deception Part 2 of 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...45709470673839

----------


## Danke

> That whole prison thing is quite compelling.

----------


## Danke

> also, my employer won't give me my paycheck unless i sign a statement attesting to what i have made.
> I just stopped picking up my checks.


So you are being forced to work for said "employer"?

----------


## torchbearer

> So you are being forced to work for said "employer"?


The urge to eat and have shelter is quite compelling.
Perhaps I should introduce you to Maslow.

----------


## torchbearer

When the government or your circumstances threaten the bottom, most basic levels of your life. It has virtually put a gun to your head in compulsion. For if you do not fulfill your most basic needs, you will have no life.

----------


## Danke

> They only have jurisidiction over you to tax your income if you consent to it by becoming a US Citizen. (SSN)


Wrong.




> Tax law is under the statutes.  26 U.S.C.
> 
> Common law and Statute law are different.


Yep, so?




> As a sovereign you're only bound by common law, not statutes.


Wrong.

----------


## torchbearer

Basically stated, withholding food(or their ability to get good) from a person until they comply- is a form of force.
Basically stated, threatening imprisonment for noncompliance is a form of force.

Just because you don't see a real gun pointed to ones head, doesn't mean force is not present.

----------


## Danke

> The urge to eat and have shelter is quite compelling.
> Perhaps I should introduce you to Maslow.


It's funny, but before I hit the reply button I knew you or someone else would bring up that very argument. 

So you are a slave and the court system is too corrupt to get any justice if you fight any potential "employer" over them filing a W-2 on you?

----------


## Danke

> Basically stated, withholding food(or their ability to get good) from a person until they comply- is a form of force.
> Basically stated, threatening imprisonment for noncompliance is a form of force.
> 
> Just because you don't see a real gun pointed to ones head, doesn't mean force is not present.


And as a Libertarian minded person (is that fair to assume?), is it not within the right of a private company to have you sign a form (I imagine you are talking about a W-4) as a prerequisite for employment at their company?

----------


## torchbearer

> And as a Libertarian minded person (is that fair to assume?), is it not within the right of a private company to have you sign a form (I imagine you are talking about a W-4) as a prerequisite for employment at their company?


FOr their records sure, but once they hand them over to the IRS as sworn testimonies against myself... they have caused damages and will be liable in a just system. They acted as agents for the IRS in the collection of sworn statements against myself. In collusion.

----------


## Danke

> FOr their records sure, but once they hand them over to the IRS as sworn testimonies against myself... they have caused damages and will be liable in a just system. They acted as agents for the IRS in the collection of sworn statements against myself. In collusion.


I wish to respond.  But that was too vague.  Can you elaborate?

----------


## torchbearer

> I wish to respond.  But that was too vague.  Can you elaborate?


on which part?

----------


## Danke

> once they hand *them* over to the IRS as sworn testimonies against myself...


What exactly is "them"?




> they have caused damages and will be liable in a just system.


Really, this needs clarification.






> They acted as agents for the IRS in the collection of sworn statements against myself.


Collection of sworn statements?   What statements? By whom?

----------


## torchbearer

> What exactly is "them"?


them= the sworn affidavits of what i made each month




> Really, this needs clarification.



when your rights are violated, you can sue for damage





> Collection of sworn statements?   What statements? By whom?




My employer collects sworn affidavits on what i make. I am force to sign them in order to receive my paycheck. This is fine for her records, but when the IRS decides to invade my personal life, they will take those records from my employer and use them in a court of law. Making me testify against myself.
My employer, by handing over those sworn statements participated in the destruction of my protected right.

----------


## NaT805

> Yep, so?


You're only bound by the statutes because you sign the tax forms.  The statutes are used as prima facie evidence against you in court, they are not common law.  It is impossible to file the Income Tax without waving your 4th and 5th amendment rights.  Therefore you're only subject to their jurisdiction if you're an employee of them.  A SSN, also known was EID (Employee Identification Number) makes you a legal entity under their authority unless you protest it.

----------


## Danke

> them= the sworn affidavits of what i made each month
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when your rights are violated, you can sue for damage
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are confusing the heck out of me 'cause you don't want to be specific.

What affidavit, what right, what sworn statements are we talking about?

----------


## Danke

> You're only bound by the statutes because you sign the tax forms.  The statues are used as prima facie evidence against you in court, they are not common law.  It is impossible to file the Income Tax without waving your 4th and 5th amendment rights.  Therefore you're only subject to their jurisdiction if you're an employee of them.  A SSN, also known was EID (Employee Identification Number) makes you a legal entity under their authority unless you protest it.


How is a statute created?

----------


## NaT805

> How is a statue created?


By chipping away the marble revealing the statue underneath.

I meant to type "statute" which is created by the legislative body.

----------


## Danke

> By chipping away the marble revealing the statue underneath.
> 
> I meant to type "statute" which is created by the legislative body.


Me too. I knew what you meant.

So you are saying you are not bound to obey statutes?

----------


## NaT805

> Me too. I knew what you meant.
> 
> So you are saying you are not bound to obey statutes?


Anyone with a SSN is bound to obey them.

----------


## Danke

> Anyone with a SSN is bound to obey them.


So if I don't have a SSN, I don't have to abide statutes?

----------


## torchbearer

> So if I don't have a SSN, I don't have to abide statutes?


as an american citizen you are required to have a SSN. so by definition, you aren't abiding.

----------


## Danke

> as an american citizen you are required to have a SSN. so by definition, you aren't abiding.


No you're not.  And that has nothing to do with following the law.

----------


## torchbearer

> No you're not.  And that has nothing to do with following the law.


How will you get paid? How will someone report their payroll, even as a contractor?
Someone will have to break the law by not having or reporting the correct social security number when it comes to tax time.,
Get a clue.

----------


## Danke

> How will you get paid? How will someone report their payroll, even as a contractor?
> Someone will have to break the law by not having or reporting the correct social security number when it comes to tax time.,
> Get a clue.


"Get a clue"  Great, so now we are making this a Kade thread.

I'm done you ignoramus. Believe what you want.

----------


## NaT805

> So if I don't have a SSN, I don't have to abide statutes?


If you get rid of your legal "person" (birth certificate is the document that created your "person", SSN/EID is your "person" becoming an agent or employee of the government, statutes are the employee rules) by claiming to be sovereign State citizen you are only required to follow common law.  You are a dual citizen, and exist as two seperate legal entities (with a SSN/EID).  The reason why no court has struck down the filing of taxes for violating the 4th and 5th amendments is because it is completely voluntary, and it is a condition of being a government employee.

Common law -> 
Criminal Law (Life, liberty, property), 
Civil Law (contracts).

Involuntary servitude is illegal, but voluntary servitude is alive and well.  The best subjects are the ones who don't even realize they have become enslaved by their own consent.

----------


## NaT805

> as an american citizen you are required to have a SSN. so by definition, you aren't abiding.


No you're not required to:
http://ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf

It says this on the application for a SSN:

"We use the facts you provide on this form to assign you a Social Security number and to issue you a Social Security card.  You do not have to gives us these facts, however, without them we cannot issue you a Social Security number or a card.  Without a number, you may not be able to get a job and could lose Social Security Benefits in the future."

----------


## torchbearer

> "Get a clue"  Great, so now we are making this a Kade thread.
> 
> I'm done you ignoramus. Believe what you want.


No one likes being faced with their own ignorance. You are a slave in this country, you have no choice. The government is in almost everything you do.

----------


## torchbearer

> No you're not required to:
> http://ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
> 
> It says this on the application for a SSN:
> 
> "We use the facts you provide on this form to assign you a Social Security number and to issue you a Social Security card.  You do not have to gives us these facts, however, without them we cannot issue you a Social Security number or a card.  Without a number, you may not be able to get a job and could lose Social Security Benefits in the future."


when you file your taxes, what number do you put in? none? they won't process the tax return. and you have broken the law. thus, you must have a SSN and participate in commerce in this country.

----------


## NaT805

> when you file your taxes, what number do you put in? none? they won't process the tax return. and you have broken the law. thus, you must have a SSN and participate in commerce in this country.


You're not required to file taxes if you do not have a SSN, there would have been no law broken.

----------


## NaT805

If you look under any statute law flip to any page and put your finger down and it will say "no person" "a person shall not" person, person person, person.  Person meaning the legal entity that was created along with you at birth.  Only persons are responsible to follow statute laws.  Law enforcement officers enforce statute laws imposed by their employer (the government, which if you have a SSN they are also your employer which means you have to follow their rules) whereas peace officers maintain peace and order and make arrests for criminal prosecution.  Where does criminal law fall under? Common law.

The words legal and lawful mean different.
The words Law Enforcement and Peace Officer mean different.
Statute law is seperate from Common Law.

Watch the video I linked on the bottom of page 2.

----------


## NaT805

Note: Remember to use legal dictionary's when looking up legal words.

----------


## torchbearer

> You're not required to file taxes if you do not have a SSN, there would have been no law broken.


Tell that to the U.S. marshals as they are dragging you out of your home one night... "but but... i don't have a social security card... you can't do this to me."

----------


## NaT805

> Tell that to the U.S. marshals as they are dragging you out of your home one night... "but but... i don't have a social security card... you can't do this to me."


But you won't be convicted of anything because you wouldn't have committed any crime.

----------


## torchbearer

> But you won't be convicted of anything because you wouldn't have committed any crime.


Tell that to the judge.

----------


## familydog

> The urge to eat and have shelter is quite compelling.
> Perhaps I should introduce you to Maslow.


This is why libertarianism will never be realized.

----------


## torchbearer

> This is why libertarianism will never be realized.


This is why libertarianism works- if you don't work, you can't get food. you don't eat, you die. Thus your motivation to work... but not only to work, but to work harder.. the more production, the more food and shelter you can acquire.
Assuming you are in a commodity based society with no fiat money.

----------


## familydog

> This is why libertarianism works- if you don't work, you can't get food. you don't eat, you die. Thus your motivation to work... but not only to work, but to work harder.. the more production, the more food and shelter you can acquire.
> Assuming you are in a commodity based society with no fiat money.


I'm not sugesting libertarianism doesn't work. I'm suggesting we will never get to the point of actually experiencing it. When people are in a bad condition, their physiological needs are not being met, they turn to whomever offers them help first--the government.

----------


## torchbearer

> I'm not sugesting libertarianism doesn't work. I'm suggesting we will never get to the point of actually experiencing it. When people are in a bad condition, their physiological needs are not being met, they turn to whomever offers them help first--the government.


That is an education/philosophical problem, not maslow.

I can produce everything i need to survive. Other people cannot.. thus, through popular democracy these  people has asked the government to go on their behalf and force me to work for their survival too.
This bull$#@! will only work for so long until Atlas Shrugs.

Then you will see 1776 all over again.

----------


## familydog

> That is an education/philosophical problem, not maslow.
> 
> I can produce everything i need to survive. Other people cannot.. thus, through popular democracy these  people has asked the government to go on their behalf and force me to work for their survival too.
> This bull$#@! will only work for so long until Atlas Shrugs.
> 
> Then you will see 1776 all over again.


Maslow is correct. People worry about their physiological needs before anything else. Look at the Progressive period. People's basic needs were not being met. They turned to "effective freedom" and those politicians that offered them help since they weren't getting sympathy from their employers. People like John Dewey and Walter Lippmann argued that in order for people to be "good republicans," get educated, and become involved in the political process (which are high on Maslow's hierarchy), the government ought to take care of their basic needs. As we all know, the government had gotten bigger every year from that point on. Although even before the period the country wasn't exactly the most free.

A libertarian society, which theoretically would provide for most people's basic needs, requires self-actualization in order to keep it in existence. Self-actualization cannot happen unless the physiological needs are met. Physiological needs cannot be met (generally, according to libertarian theory) unless the government gets out of the way. Government can't get out of the way so we can have a true libertarian society until self-actualization is met. In order for self-actualization to be met....

So it is essentially a vicious cycle. But you're right. It _is_ an educational/philispohical issue at heart. My point is that we can't get to the educational/philisophical part until people's basic needs are met. Thus why I suggested Maslow as the key to why a true libertarian society will never be realized.

----------


## Danke

> So it is essentially a vicious cycle. But you're right. It _is_ an educational/philispohical issue at heart.


Do you realize that you are talking to a legal imbecile?

Education is right, but:





> as an american citizen you are required to have a SSN. so by definition, you aren't abiding.


Who regresses to ad hominem when confronted with factual statements?





> Get a clue.


Good luck, and enjoy your fruitful exchange. 




The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable." 
                                                        - H L Mencken

----------


## NaT805

> Tell that to the judge.


So you aren't saying that what I've said is wrong you're just telling me to "go try it and see how it works for you"?

----------


## torchbearer

> So you aren't saying that what I've said is wrong you're just telling me to "go try it and see how it works for you"?


I'm saying philosphically you are 100% right, but it won't matter until the tyrants are out of power.
You can think yourself outside the system, but the ruling regime will bring you into their courts, and will ruin your life. You wouldn't be the first.

----------


## NaT805

> I'm saying philosphically you are 100% right, but it won't matter until the tyrants are out of power.
> You can think yourself outside the system, but the ruling regime will bring you into their courts, and will ruin your life. You wouldn't be the first.


I'm not speaking philsophically I am speaking legally.

----------


## torchbearer

> I'm not speaking philsophically I am speaking legally.


As in the constitution is what is legal, but the government doesn't follow it anyway- kind of legal?

----------


## NaT805

> As in the constitution is what is legal, but the government doesn't follow it anyway- kind of legal?


The government is following the constitution, just not with anyone under her employment.  If you have an Employee Identification Number(SSN) issued to you by the government, you no longer have rights, you have privileges.  Your employee rule book is called Statutes or Code.  Anything code or statutes is only binding to the subjects of the government.  Only naturalized born citizens of states are sovereign, not subjects of the national government.  Sovereign citizens are only bound by common law, the constitution is common law.  If you want the government to obey the constitution for you, you have to be bound by it first, as a citizen of [STATE] not of the national government "U.S. Citizen".

Have you watched that video yet? Magnificent Deception.

----------


## qaxn

thanks for reminding me how hilarious the patriot movement is

----------


## NaT805

> thanks for reminding me how hilarious the patriot movement is


??

----------


## DamianTV

Ok, back on point, im gonna go back to square one.  The title of the thread.  A couple pages ago someone mentioned "american citizen", and I was looking to see if there was legal applicable differences between US citizen and State Citizen.  Which one of those two categories is "american citizen" going to fall in?

SSN:  Social Security was started many years ago as a VOLUNTARY program that did not require people to enroll.  Then after a while since it was such a money maker, our honest and truthful (/sarcasm) elected (/sarcasm) leaders decided it is in our best interests if everyone was "required" to have a social security number.  Now keeping in mind that one can not agree to a legally binding contract until the ripe age of 18 years old, how is it that one is legally assigned a SSN from the day they are born?  

Now as far as getting out of paying Income Taxes, dumping your SSN isnt gonna work.  Not because it may in fact be the defining factor that requires you to give up your constitutional rights to get a paycheck , or may be complete and total conspiracy theory BS, it doesnt work for one reason: they have more guns than you.  So lets take it to court.  Bla bla bla, your honor, Income Tax is illegal because bla bla bla, then on your jury, you have Silly Sally, Joe Schmoe, John Doe, Jane Doe, Silly Billy, Slippery Sam and an invaritable plethora of average fox news loving retards all assigned Jury Duty to decide one rebellious man's fate.  Silly Sally and the whole freakin lot dont know jack $#@! about what the law really is, all they care is what they are told.  And guess what, the average person that sits on the jury for court cases is barely smart enough to know that the word gullible really is in the dictionary despite what they are told.  And they will put innocent men behind bars almost every time because they are more concerned about getting out of the court room and back to sitting on their collective asses watching more unbiased Fox News.

Being a Philadelphia Lawyer with SSN's to get out of ones Income Tax just aint gonna work.  Like I said, they have more guns than you.  And theres more of them.

I think everyone may have failed to realize the full scope of what I was proposing.  If there really is a difference between US citizen and State Citizen, one with only civil liberties, and one with the full backing of the Constitution, respectively, why stop at passing an unlawful tax, why not rob everyone of every god given right as defined in the constitution so the corporate war mongers can turn every man woman and child in the land of the free into slaves of the lowest degree, all in the name of appeasing our shadowy corporate puppet masters?

Is it at all possible this is one of Bush and his croneys' methods of "outsmarting" the legal eagles and the will of the people to pass all these completely unconstitutional laws and regulations?  Can he do everything that he thinks he can do because, in fact, we dont really have any constitutional rights to begin with?

----------


## Danke

> Ok, back on point, im gonna go back to square one.  The title of the thread.  A couple pages ago someone mentioned "american citizen", and I was looking to see if there was legal applicable differences between US citizen and State Citizen.  Which one of those two categories is "american citizen" going to fall in?
> 
> SSN:  Social Security was started many years ago as a VOLUNTARY program that did not require people to enroll.  Then after a while since it was such a money maker, our honest and truthful (/sarcasm) elected (/sarcasm) leaders decided it is in our best interests if everyone was "required" to have a social security number.  Now keeping in mind that one can not agree to a legally binding contract until the ripe age of 18 years old, how is it that one is legally assigned a SSN from the day they are born?  
> 
> Now as far as getting out of paying Income Taxes, dumping your SSN isnt gonna work.  Not because it may in fact be the defining factor that requires you to give up your constitutional rights to get a paycheck , or may be complete and total conspiracy theory BS, it doesnt work for one reason: they have more guns than you.  So lets take it to court.  Bla bla bla, your honor, Income Tax is illegal because bla bla bla, then on your jury, you have Silly Sally, Joe Schmoe, John Doe, Jane Doe, Silly Billy, Slippery Sam and an invaritable plethora of average fox news loving retards all assigned Jury Duty to decide one rebellious man's fate.  Silly Sally and the whole freakin lot dont know jack $#@! about what the law really is, all they care is what they are told.  And guess what, the average person that sits on the jury for court cases is barely smart enough to know that the word gullible really is in the dictionary despite what they are told.  And they will put innocent men behind bars almost every time because they are more concerned about getting out of the court room and back to sitting on their collective asses watching more unbiased Fox News.
> 
> Being a Philadelphia Lawyer with SSN's to get out of ones Income Tax just aint gonna work.  Like I said, they have more guns than you.  And theres more of them.
> 
> I think everyone may have failed to realize the full scope of what I was proposing.  If there really is a difference between US citizen and State Citizen, one with only civil liberties, and one with the full backing of the Constitution, respectively, why stop at passing an unlawful tax, why not rob everyone of every god given right as defined in the constitution so the corporate war mongers can turn every man woman and child in the land of the free into slaves of the lowest degree, all in the name of appeasing our shadowy corporate puppet masters?
> ...


SSN is not required.

----------


## Danke

> Ok, back on point, im gonna go back to square one.  The title of the thread.  A couple pages ago someone mentioned "american citizen", and I was looking to see if there was legal applicable differences between US citizen and State Citizen.  Which one of those two categories is "american citizen" going to fall in?
> 
> SSN:  Social Security was started many years ago as a VOLUNTARY program that did not require people to enroll.  Then after a while since it was such a money maker, our honest and truthful (/sarcasm) elected (/sarcasm) leaders decided it is in our best interests if everyone was "required" to have a social security number.  Now keeping in mind that one can not agree to a legally binding contract until the ripe age of 18 years old, how is it that one is legally assigned a SSN from the day they are born?  
> 
> Now as far as getting out of paying Income Taxes, dumping your SSN isnt gonna work.  Not because it may in fact be the defining factor that requires you to give up your constitutional rights to get a paycheck , or may be complete and total conspiracy theory BS, it doesnt work for one reason: they have more guns than you.  So lets take it to court.  Bla bla bla, your honor, Income Tax is illegal because bla bla bla, then on your jury, you have Silly Sally, Joe Schmoe, John Doe, Jane Doe, Silly Billy, Slippery Sam and an invaritable plethora of average fox news loving retards all assigned Jury Duty to decide one rebellious man's fate.  Silly Sally and the whole freakin lot dont know jack $#@! about what the law really is, all they care is what they are told.  And guess what, the average person that sits on the jury for court cases is barely smart enough to know that the word gullible really is in the dictionary despite what they are told.  And they will put innocent men behind bars almost every time because they are more concerned about getting out of the court room and back to sitting on their collective asses watching more unbiased Fox News.
> 
> Being a Philadelphia Lawyer with SSN's to get out of ones Income Tax just aint gonna work.  Like I said, they have more guns than you.  And theres more of them.
> 
> I think everyone may have failed to realize the full scope of what I was proposing.  If there really is a difference between US citizen and State Citizen, one with only civil liberties, and one with the full backing of the Constitution, respectively, why stop at passing an unlawful tax, why not rob everyone of every god given right as defined in the constitution so the corporate war mongers can turn every man woman and child in the land of the free into slaves of the lowest degree, all in the name of appeasing our shadowy corporate puppet masters?
> ...


Having a number assign to you (SSN) does not make you liable for the Income Tax.  It is the activity you are engaged in that creates the liability.  It is a Constitutional tax.

----------


## DamianTV

No it isnt.  Its a DIRECT UNAPPORTIONED tax.

The United States Constitution strictly forbids a direct unapportioned tax on the wages and salaries of American citizens.The United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Income Tax is a tax on profits and gains, not on labor and wages.

U.S. Constitution, amendment XVI  
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. 

The 16th Amendment granted Congress no new powers of taxation. This amendment is a statement about excise taxes, and certainly does not allow for a new direct tax on earnings for work.
Income is not specifically defined in the IRS Manuals nor is it defined in the IRS Code. Congress did not define it. Income has always been defined by the Courts as to exclude wages. 

TAX LAW ORIGINS AND AUTHORITY
Congress has had power to lay and collect income taxes from the time of the adoption of the Constitution, (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236, 240 US 1). This power was subject to the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the several states according to population (Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., [N.Y. 1895] 125 S.Ct. 673, 157 US 429). The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (effective Feb. 25, 1913) giving Congress power to:

---

Im not gonna spend too much time on this.  Its not my concern.  They are illegal.  They are nothing but a bunch of thugs with guns that intimidate you to bidding their will.  GUess what.  Im intimidated.  Legal or not, Im probably gonna keep paying just so they dont do what they've done to me before (not the IRS) and thats to just make $#@! up as they go and charge me with what they feel like.  And, they have bigger guns than I do.






*Ok, forget the income tax crap.  What about dumping constitutional rights like they dont exist because we actually dont have any as US citizens who only get civil rights?*




.

----------


## Danke

> No it isnt.  Its a DIRECT UNAPPORTIONED tax.
> 
> The United States Constitution strictly forbids a direct unapportioned tax on the wages and salaries of American citizens.The United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Income Tax is a tax on profits and gains, not on labor and wages.
> 
> U.S. Constitution, amendment XVI  
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. 
> 
> The 16th Amendment granted Congress no new powers of taxation. This amendment is a statement about excise taxes, and certainly does not allow for a new direct tax on earnings for work.
> Income is not specifically defined in the IRS Manuals nor is it defined in the IRS Code. Congress did not define it. Income has always been defined by the Courts as to exclude wages. 
> ...


The Income Tax is an indirect tax.

----------


## DamianTV

> The Income Tax is an indirect tax.


Thanks for not answering my question.




> *Ok, forget the income tax crap.  What about dumping constitutional rights like they dont exist because we actually dont have any as US citizens who only get civil rights?*

----------


## Danke

> Thanks for not answering my question.


Ah, what was the q?  You said it was a direct tax. I sad, no.

----------


## Danke

Oh, I see.  The Red part.  Well, that is another topic entirely.

I really don't know.  For the most part, there are far too many definitions of "U.S."  So you would have to explain which code you are referring to for me to answer anything having to do with the definition of "U.S."

----------


## DamianTV

Thats kinda the thing is I dont really know.  Most of this is off of memory from something I heard over 10 years ago, and hear again here and there, but havent ever really read it for myself.

----------


## NaT805

> it doesnt work for one reason: they have more guns than you.


So let's not fight the british and let them have the colonies, I mean, they have more guns than we do.

----------


## NaT805

14th Amendment U.S. Constitution
"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."

----------


## torchbearer

LALP convention defines Citizenship in Louisiana in its platform as:



> Citizenship
> 
> 
> We hold that all Men born in Louisiana, or in any one of the several United States, now domiciled in Louisiana, regardless of race or gender, are Citizens of Louisiana, and enjoy all of the benefits, rights, powers, authorities, prerogatives, and privileges of a sovereign.  At no time is any Citizen of Louisiana in any way subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, while within the territory of Louisiana.


Proud of that one.

----------


## Danke

> 14th Amendment U.S. Constitution
> "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."


Yeah, the 14th is a can of worms.  

Common Law types usually look at that applying to the freed slaves that didn't have a State Citizenship.

----------


## NaT805

http://www.usavsus.info

----------


## Danke

I am familiar with that site.


What is your opinion?


Most laws need to be traced back to the terms they use and how those terms are defined.  U.S., U.S.A., etc.   have so many definitions, one really needs to be specific as to which regulation or code they are referring.  Otherwise any discussion of status deteriorates to meaningless gibberish.

----------


## DamianTV

> So let's not fight the british and let them have the colonies, I mean, they have more guns than we do.


I get your point but I didnt mean it that way.  What I mean by standing up to the IRS and saying that Income Tax is bull$#@! and illegal bla bla bla, when you fight them you'll most likely be standing by yourself.  That is not the right time or place to pick a battle.  If it were me, and I stuck up for myself, Id either be dead or in prison for all of eternity, either way, I WONT be there to fight the important history deciding battles, in court, legislation, or on the batlefield, that determine the fates of us all.

Divided we fall.

----------


## NaT805

> I am familiar with that site.
> 
> 
> What is your opinion?
> 
> 
> Most laws need to be traced back to the terms they use and how those terms are defined.  U.S., U.S.A., etc.   have so many definitions, one really needs to be specific as to which regulation or code they are referring.  Otherwise any discussion of status deteriorates to meaningless gibberish.


I haven't found anything wrong on that site.

----------


## bojo68

> They only have jurisidiction over you to tax your income if you consent to it by becoming a US Citizen. (SSN)
> 
> Tax law is under the statutes.  26 U.S.C.
> 
> Common law and Statute law are different.
> 
> As a sovereign you're only bound by common law, not statutes.  Only your "person" is responsible to follow statutes, and the legal definition of "person" is a "corporation".  
> 
> This is a canadian film, as far as I know everything he talks about applies to the United States except the "Claim of Right" which is from English law. (We declared independence, remember?  )  Talks about sovereign, legal, lawful, statutes, law, person...etc.
> ...


Links have been eaten! Maybe that means they were worthwhile?? Maybe that means that the net is already censored???

----------

