Source: https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/citizen.htm
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 09:45:18
Document Index: 579567296

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1452', '§886', '§886', '§31', '§1', '§1332', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 4']

CITES BY TOPIC: citizen
Citizenship Status v. Tax Status - summary of the stance of citizenship on this website
Words and Phrases, Volume 7: Citizen
The Good Citizen (OFFSITE LINK) -Michael Sandel, Harvard University
Citizenship and Sovereignty, Form #12.001 (OFFSITE LINKS) -basics of citizenship and sovereignty
You're not a STATUTORY "citizen" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code
SEDM Exhibit Page, Section 1.1: Citizenship, Domicile, and Residency (OFFSITE LINK) - SEDM
Citizenship and Domicile as Verified by President Obama, Exhibit #01.017 (OFFSITE LINK) - SEDM
Duties and Responsibilities of Citizens within a Free Republic
Department of State scams with "Certificates of non-citizen National Status" under 8 U.S.C. §1452
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588
“We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each is distinct from the other and each has citizens of its own...”
[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588]
Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 30 L.Ed. 766, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763
In the Constitution of the United States the word "citizen" is generally, if not always, used in a political sense to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States. It is also used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 30 L.Ed. 766, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763]
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)
“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
[McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)]
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
[Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935) ]
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
[Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)]
IMPORTANT!: Read Great IRS Hoax, Sections 4.11 through 4.11.11: Citizenship
U.S. Citizenship/Lawful Presence Payment Requirements (POMS Manual section RS00204.010)-who the the Social Security Administration "thinks" is a citizen
19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations §886 [Legal encyclopedia]
[19 Corpus Juris Secundum, Corporations, §886]
Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Fed.Cas. 902 (1821)
"A citizen of one state is to be considered as a citizen of every other state in the union. "
[Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Fed.Cas. 902 (1821)]
26 C.F.R. §31.3121(e)-1 State, United States, and citizen
26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c): Income Tax on individuals
(c) Who is a citizen.
Every person born or naturalized in the [federal] United States and subject to its [exclusive federal jurisdiction under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution] 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). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481-1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7332, 39 FR 44216, Dec. 23, 1974]
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 244:
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.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 244]
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874):
"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' are expressly declared to be 'citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [88 U.S. 162, 166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
"For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words 'subject,' 'inhabitant,' and 'citizen' have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more."
[Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)]
State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265 (1888)
"...it is well settled that a corporation created by a state is a citizen of the state, within the meaning of those provisions of the constitution and statutes of the United States which define the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Railroad Co. v. Railroad Co., 112 U.S. 414 , 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 208; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 178; Pennsylvania v. Bridge Co., 13 How. 518."
[State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265 (1888)]
Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S 135 (1892):
Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., 55 F.Supp. 981, D.C.PA. (1944)
"The term ‘citizen‘, as used in the Judiciary Act with reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, is substantially synonymous with the term ‘domicile‘. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Petrowsky, 2 Cir., 250 F. 554, 557."
[Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., 55 F.Supp. 981, D.C.PA. (1944)]
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 310
The terms "citizen" and "citizenship" are distinguishable from "resident" or "inhabitant." Jeffcott v. Donovan, C.C.A.Ariz., 135 F.2d 213, 214; and from "domicile," Wheeler v. Burgess, 263 Ky. 693, 93 S.W.2d 351, 354; First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia v. New York Title & Mortgage Co., D.C.S.C., 59 F.2d 35j0, 351. The words "citizen" and citizenship," however, usually include the idea of domicile, Delaware, L.&W.R.Co. v. Petrowsky, C.C.A.N.Y., 250 F. 554, 557; citizen inhabitant and resident often synonymous, Jonesboro Trust Co. v. Nutt, 118 Ark. 368, 176 S.W. 322, 324; Edgewater Realty Co. v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co., D.C.Md., 49 F.Supp. 807, 809; and citizenship and domicile are often synonymous. Messick v. Southern Pa. Bus Co., D.C.Pa., 59 F.Supp. 799, 800.
[Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 310]
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 311
Domicile and citizen are synonymous in federal courts, Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., D.C. Pa., 55 F.Supp. 981, 982; inhabitant, resident and citizen are synonymous, Standard Stoker Co. v. Lower, D.C.Md., 46 F.2d 678, 683.
[Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 311]
Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d. 147 (1940)
In its construction it is proper to apply the rule that criminal laws are to be construed strictly, and to bear in mind that other rule that a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that ‘citizen‘ means ‘citizen of the United States‘, and not person generally, nor citizen of a State; and that the ‘rights and privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States‘ means those specially and validly secured thereby. Thus limited, this section has been enforced as constitutional. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651,4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274; United States v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76, 5 S.Ct. 35, 28 L.Ed. 673;Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 12 S.Ct. 617,36 L.Ed. 429; United States v. Moseley, supra. In the Yarbrough case the right involved was that to vote in a Congressional election, as it was in the Moseley case; in the Waddell case it was the right to make a federal homestead entry; and in the Logan case it was the right to be secure from lawless violence while a prisoner in the hands of a United States Marshal. These matters, all within the federal power, Congress could protect under the general authority to pass ‘all necessary and proper laws‘, under U.S.C.A. Constitution, Art. 1, Sect. 8,Par. 18. But Section 5519 of the Revised Statutes, which undertook similarly to punish conspiracies against any person to deprive him of the equal protection of the laws, or *150 to prevent State authorities from affording such protection, was held unconstitutional, because neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other part of the Constitution put the matter of conspiracies by individuals touching such matters within the power of Congress, but only gave power to correct wrong action by the State or its officers. It was so held in United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 1 S.Ct. 601,27 L.Ed. 290, where the person mobbed was in the custody of a State Sheriff; and in Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763, 30 L.Ed.766, where the rights of a Chinese under a treaty of the United States were involved. It was again held that the power of Congress was not extended to protect against violations by individuals of the general rights of persons and citizens by the mention of such rights in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S.C.A., in the Civil Rights Cases,109 U.S. 3, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835. The reasoning of these cases, though opposed by some dissents, is full and convincing, and the conclusion reached as to the effect upon federal power of the Fourteenth Amendment has stood for more than two generations.
Pursuing further the application of the statute now before us, in Baldwin v. Franks, supra, it was held the word ‘citizen‘ means citizen of the United States in a political sense, and did not include a resident Chinese. Again in Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1, 27 S.Ct. 6, 51 L.Ed. 65, the section was invoked against conspirators who were charged with interfering with citizens in their right or liberty of contracting to work in a lawful occupation, but the court held that this was a common right of all persons, and the Fourteenth Amendment did not put it under federal protection except against State action; and the fact that the persons there involved were negroes did not bring the matter within the special ambit of the Thirteenth Amendment. Similarly in United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, 41 S.Ct. 133, 65 L.Ed. 270,the right invaded by the conspirators was the citizen's right to remain in the State of his choice, and to remove only at his own will. The Court conceded the right to be fundamental and to belong to the citizens of each State, and to be guarded in part against State interference by Art. 4, Sect. 2 of the Constitution, but held that no federal offense was involved in an abduction done by individual conspirators.
[Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d. 147 (1940)]