Source: https://whatinquiringmindswanttoknow.wordpress.com/2018/05/13/citizens-v-nationals/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:08:02
Document Index: 181544248

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1332', '§1332', '§ 1332', '§ 1332', '§ 1332', '§ 1332', '§ 1653', '§ 3', '§ 8', '§3111', '§5', '§1401', '§1401', '§1401']

“Citizens” v. “Nationals” – What Inquiring Minds Want to Know
Politics, Secrets Of America
“Citizens” v. “Nationals”
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/CitizensVNationals.htm
What if I don’t consent to receive ANY of the “benefits” or “privileges” of being a “citizen”? What would I be called?
Statutory “citizens”
Statutory “nationals”
Rights Lost By Becoming a statutory ‘U.S. citizen”
citizen. One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. 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. U.S. Const., 14th Amend. SeeCitizenship.
Under diversity statute [28 U.S.C. §1332], which mirrors U.S. Const, Article III‘s diversity clause, a person is a “citizen of a state” if he or she is a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of a state of the United States. Gibbons v. Udaras na Gaeltachta, D.C.N.Y., 549 F.Supp. 1094, 1116. “
Table 19: Mandatory components of being a “citizen”
5.2 Under the statutes of the jurisdiction we are NOT a “citizen” of?
Petitioner Newman-Green, Inc., an Illinois corporation, brought this state law contract action in District Court against a Venezuelan corporation, four Venezuelan citizens, and William L. Bettison, a United States citizen domiciled in Caracas, Venezuela. Newman-Green’s complaint alleged that the Venezuelan corporation had breached a licensing agreement, and that the individual defendants, joint and several guarantors of royalty payments due under the agreement, owed money to Newman-Green. Several years of discovery and pretrial motions followed. The District Court ultimately granted partial summary judgment for the guarantors and partial summary judgment for Newman-Green. 590 F.Supp. 1083 (ND Ill.1984). Only Newman-Green appealed.
At oral argument before a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Easterbrook inquired as to the statutory basis for diversity jurisdiction, an issue which had not been previously raised either by counsel or by the District Court Judge. In its complaint, Newman-Green had invoked 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(3), which confers jurisdiction in the District Court when a citizen of one State sues both aliens and citizens of a State (or States) different from the plaintiff’s. In order to be a citizen of a State within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the State. See Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648-649 (1878); Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115 (1834). The problem in this case is that Bettison, although a United States citizen, has no domicile in any State. He is therefore “stateless” for purposes of § 1332(a)(3). Subsection 1332(a)(2), which confers jurisdiction in the District Court when a citizen of a State sues aliens only, also could not be satisfied because Bettison is a United States citizen. [490 U.S. 829]
When a plaintiff sues more than one defendant in a diversity action, the plaintiff must meet the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant or face dismissal. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806).{1} Here, Bettison’s “stateless” status destroyed complete diversity under § 1332(a)(3), and his United States citizenship destroyed complete diversity under § 1332(a)(2). Instead of dismissing the case, however, the Court of Appeals panel granted Newman-Green’s motion, which it had invited, to amend the complaint to drop Bettison as a party, thereby producing complete diversity under § 1332(a)(2). 832 F.2d. 417 (1987). The panel, in an opinion by Judge Easterbrook, relied both on 28 U.S.C. § 1653 and on Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as sources of its authority to grant this motion. The panel noted that, because the guarantors are jointly and severally liable, Bettison is not an indispensable party, and dismissing him would not prejudice the remaining guarantors. 832 F.2d. at 420, citing Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 19(b). The panel then proceeded to the merits of the case, ruling in Newman-Green’s favor in large part, but remanding to allow the District Court to quantify damages and to resolve certain minor issues.{2}
Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE!], and not a constitutional, right. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. While longstanding practice is not sufficient to demonstrate constitutionality, such a practice requires special scrutiny before being set aside. See, e.g., Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922) (Holmes, J.) (“If a thing has been practiced for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it[.]”); Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970) (“It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use . . . . Yet an unbroken practice . . . is not something to be lightly cast aside.”). And while Congress cannot take away the citizenship of individuals covered by the Citizenship Clause, it can bestow citizenship upon those not within the Constitution’s breadth. See U.S. Const, art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 (“Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory belonging to the United States.”); id. at art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (Congress may “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . ..”). To date, Congress has not seen fit to bestow birthright citizenship upon American Samoa, and in accordance with the law, this Court must and will respect that choice.16
The term “non-person” as used on this site we define to be a human not domiciled on federal territory, not engaged in a public office, and not “purposefully and consensually availing themself” of commerce within the jurisdiction of the United States government. We invented this term. The term does not appear in federal statutes because statutes cannot even define things or people who are not subject to them and therefore foreign and sovereign. The term “non-individual” used on this site is equivalent to and a synonym for “non-person” on this site, even though STATUTORY “individuals” are a SUBSET of “persons” within the Internal Revenue Code. Likewise, the term “private human” is also synonymous with “non-person”. Hence, a “non-person”:
Is on an equal footing with the United States government in court. “Persons” would be on an UNEQUAL, INFERIOR, and subservient level if they were subject to federal territorial law.
Don’t expect vain public servants to willingly admit that there is such a thing as a human who satisfies the above criteria because it would undermine their systematic and treasonous plunder and enslavement of people they are supposed to be protecting. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the “right to be left alone” is the purpose of the constitution. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438. A so-called “government” that refuses to leave you alone or respect or protect your sovereignty and equality in relation to them is no government at all and has violated the purpose of its creation described in the Declaration of Independence.
PAULSEN, ETHICS (Thilly’s translation), chap. 9.
“Justice, as a moral habit, is that tendency of the will and mode of conduct which refrains from disturbing the lives and interests of others, and, as far as possible, hinders such interference on the part of others. This virtue springs from the individual’s respect for his fellows as ends in themselves and as his co equals. The different spheres of interests may be roughly classified as follows: body and life; the family, or the extended individual life; property, or the totality of the instruments of action; honor, or the ideal existence; and finally freedom, or the possibility of fashioning one’s life as an end in itself. The law defends these different spheres, thus giving rise to a corresponding number of spheres of rights, each being protected by a prohibition. . . . To violate the rights, to interfere with the interests of others, is injustice. All injustice is ultimately directed against the life of the neighbor; it is an open avowal that the latter is not an end in itself, having the same value as the individual’s own life. The general formula of the duty of justice may therefore be stated as follows: Do no wrong yourself, and permit no wrong to be done, so far as lies in your power; or, expressed positively: Respect and protect the right.”
“’Citizens’ are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have…submitted themselves to the dominion of a government [and all its laws] for the promotion of their general welfareand the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.”
The only people who are “subject to” federal civil statutory, and therefore “citizens” under federal civil statutory law, are those people who have voluntarily chosen a domicile where the federal government has exclusive legislative/general jurisdiction, which exists only within the federal zone, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution and 40 U.S.C. §§3111 and 3112. Within the Internal Revenue Code, people born in the federal zone or domiciled there are described as being “subject to its jurisdiction” rather than “subject to thejurisdiction” as mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, THIS type of “citizen” is NOT a Constitutional citizen but a Statutory citizen domiciled on federal territory:
“(c) Who is a citizen.
Every person born or naturalized in the [federal] United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459). “
Sec. 1401. – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
4. Statutory “nationals”
(a) The term ”national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
“JUS SOLI. The law of the place of one’s birth as contrasted with jus sanguinis, the law of the place of one’s descent or parentage. It is of feudal origin. Hershey, Int. L. 237.
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) – a rule of common law under which the place of a persons birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) – a concept of Roman or civil law under which a persons citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called citizenship by descent or derivative citizenship, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
‘The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens,’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. …”
“From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and Government founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.”
[Chisholm, Ex’r. v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.ed. 454, 457, 471, 472) (1794)]
Sec. 1101. – Definitions
(a) (22) The term ”national of the United States” means
“The power to “legislate generally upon” life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the “power to provide modes of redress” against offensive state action, was “repugnant” to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876) ; United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883) ; James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903) . Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) ; United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) , their treatment of Congress’ §5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been questioned.”
The Court today holds that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to Bellei [an 8 U.S.C. §1401 STATUTORY citizen]. The Court first notes that Afroyim was essentially a case construing the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the Citizenship Clause declares that: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States * * * are citizens of the United States * * *.’ the Court reasons that the protections against involuntary expatriation declared in Afroyim do not protect all American citizens, but only those ‘born or naturalized in the United States.’ Afroyim, the argument runs, was naturalized in this country so he was protected by the Citizenship Clause, but Bellei, since he acquired his American citizenship at birth in Italy as a foreignborn child of an American citizen, was neither born nor naturalized in the United States and, hence, falls outside the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees declared in Afroyim. One could hardly call this a generous reading of the great purposes the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to bring about. While conceding that Bellei is an American citizen, the majority states: ‘He simply is not a Fourteenth-Amendment-first-sentence citizen.’ Therefore, the majority reasons, the congressional revocation of his citizenship is not barred by the Constitution. I cannot accept the Court’s conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the citizenship of some Americans and not others. [. . .]
The Court today puts aside the Fourteenth Amendment as a standard by which to measure congressional action with respect to citizenship, and substitutes in its place the majority’s own vague notions of ‘fairness.’ The majority takes a new step with the recurring theme that the test of constitutionality is the Court’s own view of what is ‘fair, reasonable, and right.’ Despite the concession that Bellei was admittedly an American citizen, and despite the holding in Afroyim that the Fourteenth Amendment has put citizenship, once conferred, beyond the power of Congress to revoke, the majority today upholds the revocation of Bellei’s citizenship on the ground that the congressional action was not ‘irrational or arbitrary or unfair.’ The majority applies the ‘shock-the-conscience’ test to uphold, rather than strike, a federal statute. It is a dangerous concept of constitutional law that allows the majority to conclude that, because it cannot say the statute is ‘irrational or arbitrary or unfair,’ the statute must be constitutional.
Since the Court this Term has already downgraded citizens receiving public welfare, Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 91 S.Ct. 381, 27 L.Ed.2d. 408 (1971), and citizens having the misfortune to be illegitimate, Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532, 91 S.Ct. 1917, 28 L.Ed.2d. 288, I suppose today’s decision downgrading citizens born outside the United States should have been expected. Once again, as in James and Labine, the Court’s opinion makes evident that its holding is contrary to earlier decisions. Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute.
A state Citizen has the right to have any gun he/she wishes without being registered. A “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 does not. In the District of Columbia, it is a felony to own a handgun unless you are a police officer or a security guard or the hand gun was registered before 1978. The District of Columbia has not been admitted into the Union. Therefore the people of the District of Columbia are not protected by the Second Amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights. Despite the lack of legal guns in DC, crime is rampant. It is called Murder Capital of the World. This should prove that gun control/victim disarmament laws do not work in America. Across the country, there is an assault on guns. If you are a “U.S.** citizen” and you are using Second Amendment arguments to protect your rights to keep your guns, I believe you are in for a surprise. First by registering gun owners then renaming guns ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘Handguns’, those in power will take away your civil right to bear arms. Of course, they won’t tell you that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right and not a natural right for a U.S. citizens. The Supreme court has ruled that you as an individual have no right to protection by the police. Their only obligation is to protect “society”. The real protection for state Citizens to keep their guns is not the Second Amendment but the Ninth Amendment.
A state Citizen has the right to travel on the public easements (public roads) without being registered. A statutory “U.S. citizen” does not. It is a privilege for a foreigner to travel in any of the several states. If you are a statutory U.S. citizen, you are a foreigner in a constitutional state. The state legislators can require foreigners and people involved in commerce (chauffeurs, freight haulers) to be licensed, insured, and to have their vehicles registered. When you register your car, you turn over power of attorney to the state. At that point, it becomes a motor vehicle. If it is not registered then it is not a motor vehicle and there are no motor vehicle statutes to break. There are common law rules of the road. If you don’t cause an injury to anybody then you cannot be tried.
If your car is registered, the state effectively owns your car. The state supplies a sticker to put on your license plate every time you re-register the motor vehicle. Look closely at the sticker on your plate right now. You may be surprised to see that it says “OFFICIAL USE ONLY”.(Note: In some states, they do not use stickers on the plate) You may have seen municipal vehicles that have signs on them saying “OFFICIAL USE ONLY” on them but why does yours? You do not own your car. You may have a Certificate of Title but you probably do not have the certificate of origin. You are leasing the state’s vehicle by paying the yearly registration fee. Because you are using their equipment, they can make rules up on how it can be used. If you break a rule, such as driving without a seatbelt, you have broken the contract and an administrative procedure will make you pay the penalty. A state Citizen must be able to explain to the police officers why they are not required to have the usual paperwork that most people have. They should carry copies of affidavits and other paperwork in their car. The state Citizen should also be prepared to go to traffic court and explain it to the judge.
The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1875)), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of “citizens of the United States” guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment.” West v. Louisianna, 194 U.S. 258 (1904).
The privileges and immunities [civil rights] of the 14th Amendment citizens were derived [taken] from….the Constitution, but are not identical to those referred to in Article IV, Sect. 2 of the Constitution [which recognizes the existence of state Citizens who were not citizens of the United States because there was no such animal in 1787]. Plainly spoken, RIGHTS in the constitution of the United States of America, which are recognized to be grants from our creator, are clearly different from the “civil rights” that were granted by Congress to its own brand of franchised statutory “U.S. citizen” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401.
“A ‘civil right’ is a right given and protected by law [man’s law], and a person’s enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it.”
Title 42 of the USC contains the Civil Rights laws. It says “Rights under 42 USCS section 1983 are for citizens of the United States and not of state. Wadleigh v. Newhall (1905, CC Cal) 136 F 941.”
Citizenshipcivil rightscommon lawdeceptionfederalinterpretationjurisdictionlawstate
Hi There & Welcome. I am a very eclectic type person that does lots of reading and research on a vast array of subjects. So you will see all kinds of information here that may or may not relate to each other, but I'll do my best to keep it organized. At times I get on rolls that "my inner or higher me" takes over, and that I cannot control. Not that I'd want to, that's where the truth lives. If you like what you read please consider donating to the website so that it may improve and to receive better quality. Thank you so much for your interest and support. https://paypal.com/maggymayandme	View all posts by maggy1me2
Previous Previous post: CITIZENSHIP DEFINE. WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN?
Next Next post: Two Kinds of Citizen | Obama Conspiracy Theories