Richard McDonald's Seminar on state Citizenship

Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)
Translate this Page!

Richard McDonald´s Seminar on state Citizenship

Greetings, I'm a living man and I go by Richard McDonald

I´m involved in a political movement to restore state´s rights, and state Citizenship. I´m involved in 19 states right now, teaching citizenship. I´m involved in approximately 40 states teaching common law, and with people that I´m assisting.

I have a court case that says I have a right to go to any state in the Union to teach Citizens the law. I have another court case that says it is my absolute duty to protect my republican form of government. How do I protect my republican form of government? By teachin  you the law. So, combining those two court cases, they can´t stop me.

Every Patriot group out there has been raided -- except the Citizens groups. None of the Citizens have been raided. The district attorney has been asked questions about state Citizenship. The district attorney researched it and says that "yes, it is a legal thing to do."

This document you´re getting is the Soldier´s Training Manual of 1928. The government used to give training manuals to soldiers, teaching them that democracy was evil, in a republican form of government. One column gives the definition of democracy, as it was defined in 1928. President Roosevelt had all these training manuals destroyed so that he could institute a democracy. That´s his New Deal -- communism.

Democracy and communism are identical twin brothers. Look at the communist manifesto, look at what´s happening here under democracy, and you´ll see that all the planks are identical.

The next page is one of the first cases I found while I was researching Citizenship. I want you to read the top paragraph and tell me if you are a U.S. citizen.

No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.
Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal 43.

You have to remember the 14th amendment is not law, it´s never been passed, not ratified. So when you claim you are a U.S. citizen, you claim that you´re a little green man from Mars with six heads; and that´s the way the court looks at you, a dummy that doesn´t know what he´s talking about.

And how did you become a U.S. citizen? When you got your social security number. What you have now is the original social security act of 1935. I´d like you to read the top paragraph, and tell me where that trust fund is that they´re talking about on television and radio. You hear them say, "give us your money, we´ll keep it in the trust fund". Read what it says:

AN ACT To provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.

It´s for revenue raising, and other purposes. There is no trust fund. Everything you give to the government is for revenue purposes. They do not have to pay you anything in Social Security. It´s a gratuity given by government. It can be abolished, and taken away tomorrow. That´s what the courts have ruled, many times.

And when you´ve got your social security number you said " I want some welfare, I want some workmen´s comp, I want, I want, I want ... and you have my power of attorney to regulate and control me. I´m a fictitious entity. I´m not a human being anymore."

When you do that, you give the federal government power of attorney.Then the government gives it to their courts. You become a ward of the court. So, read what a ward of the court is:

Wards of court. Infants and persons ofunsound mind ... Their rights must be guarded jealously ...
Black´s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition.

His [attorney] first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and whenever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.
Corpus Juris Secundum, 1980 Edition.

Clients are also called "wards of the court" in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.
Corpus Juris Secundum, 1980 Edition.


Nobody here looks like an imbecile or and infant to me, but you claim you are, and the courts recognize you as such. That´s why you have to have an attorney.

And when you became a U.S. citizen, you became a citizen of the United States government. Now read what the United States government is:

The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
 In re Merriam, 163 US 625.

Ninety-nine percent of the time when they say small ´s state, they´re referring to the common law republic country. A capital ´S´ State is a corporation. Large ´S"  means corporation, fiction; small ´s´ means land mass, country.

Next is California Government Code section 242. Remember, as a U.S. citizen, you are a citizen of the District of Columbia. Is the District of Columbia a state of the Union? No. Now, you tell me under California law what you are, either (a) or (b):

Persons in the State not its citizens are either:

(a) Citizens of other States; or
(b) Aliens.


You´re alien to California! Key words: Alien, resident, foreigner, franchisee, they all mean the same thing. The laws are very specific, and they tell you up front. A "person" fits in the same category.

Next is the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and after you read that, I have a question for you:

CHAP XXXI -- An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.


My question is: Can you be this "person" and a Citizen at the same time?

 No? Good! Because read what the court said in 1979:

Upon introducing the provisions which eventually became 18 USC 242, its sponsor, Senator Stewart, explicitly stated that the bill protected all "persons" ... He noted that the bill "simply extends to foreigners, not citizens, the protection of our laws."
United States v. Otherson, 480 F.Supp 1369, 1373.

Rights under [civil rights act] are for citizens of United States and not of state.
Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F 941.


All federal law only protects persons, aliens and foreigners, not Citizens. Federal law can´t protect you if you´re not subject to it. The laws of Japan can´t protect  me -- I´m not subject to them.

As a U.S. citizen, you have civil rights. I, as a state Citizen have no civil rights whatsoever. I have sovereign rights. God gave me my rights, the government gives me nothing. I am outside of their scope and all of their authority.

The next is an 1829 court case. Our Founding Fathers fought England, kicked England out, and went to France to sign the Treaty of Peace. The King of England relinquished all of his sovereign authority, and all of his God-given kingly rights to the People. That´s when it used to be a man was "king of his own home", when we were state Citizens:

People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, 21 D 89.

Next we come to  Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907). I want you to go to the law library and xerox the whole court case.  The federal government recognizes that there are three sovereigns; We the People, the state government, and  the federal government. Remember that We, the People were state Citizens. People are not "persons". I´m not a "person", I´m people. A legal distinction. I may be a person figuratively speaking, but in law, I´m not a "person".

Now we jump to 1986:

[i]n our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. ... a United States citizen possesses a constitutional right to remain a citizen ... unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.   Richards v. Secretary of State, 752 F.2d 1413.

So people have a right to remain a Citizen unless they voluntarily relinquish it. What happened when you voluntarily relinquished it? You got your Social Security number! Didn´t you ask for your civil rights? A civil right is a right given, regulated, controlled, and taxed by the agency that granted it. The only one who gave me my rights is God. God is my government, personally, according to the Bible. I obey my government.

[Question] I´m trying to understand "people" versus  "person".

The law is very distinct. Persons are not people. "We, the People" wrote the Constitution. They were state Citizens. "Persons" came along under the 14th amendment.

Everybody wants to talk about the income tax. I happen to like this court case. It´s a very clear definition of the income tax:

An income tax is neither a property tax, nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax.
Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720 (1925).

An income tax is an excise tax. What is an excise tax? You buy a wristwatch, you pay an excise tax. You buy tires for your automobile, you pay an excise tax. You put gas in your motor vehicle, you pay an excise tax. Anything you do not need can be taxed under an excise tax: You buy food and clothing, you don´t have to pay an excise tax. Those are items of necessity. And all the courts have ruled that U.S. citizenship is a privilege, it´s not a right.

You have a right to be a state Citizen. It is a privilege to be a U.S. citizen.

Next is a 1924 court case, Cook vs. Tate. Let me explain this case for you. Mr. Cook went down to Mexico City. There, he opened up a business and earned some money. The Bureau of Internal Revenue came down and said, "hey, you owe us some money." Cook said "no I don´t! I didn´t earn any money from the United States. I earned it all down here."

He paid the tax under protest, and appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the United States government has a right to tax its citizens wherever they are resident. Keyword: resident.

My father paid no income tax in 1924, because he was a state Citizen. He didn´t begin paying income tax until he got his Social Security number, when he became a "resident", in 1941.

This next is the second court case that started me  thinking:

Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizen to privileges and immunities of citizen of state, since privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other.
K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545 (1927).

Why are they different? State Citizens are not subject to federal law. They have sovereign immunity. U.S. citizens are subject to just about everything -- even the local dogcatcher!

Then I found:

Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875); quoted in Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, 221 A2d 433 (1966).

You don´t have to be a U.S. citizen in order to be a state Citizen. So why are you? Social Security, marriage license, driver´s license are various entrapments. How many people here have marriage licenses? When you got your marriage license, you married the state. The state is the third party in your marriage contract.

The first marriage license ever issued in America was in 1839, to a rich South Carolina plantation owner, so he could marry his mulatto slave. It was for an interracial  marriage:

MARRIAGE LICENSE. A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry...

INTERMARRIAGE. In the popular sense, this term denotes the contracting of a marriage relation between two persons considered as members of different nations, tribes, families, etc. ...

I, as a state Citizen, got my due process the day I was  born. Now I want you to tell me when you got your due process, as a U.S. citizen:

As far as federal due process is concerned, the right to trial by jury in state trials only dates from May 20, 1968, the date of the decisions of Duncan v. Louisiana, Bloom v. Illinois, and Dyke v. Taylor Implement Co. J. F., In re, 268 CA2d 761 (1969).

As a U.S. citizen, you did not have due process prior to May 20, 1968. The courts decided you should have a little bit, so they gave it to you. The courts could decide tomorrow to take it away, and they could abolish it tomorrow. No bill of rights apply to you, except what the courts have decided. You have no natural rights. The only natural rights you have are to be a slave to the government.

All the states are sovereign countries. Each one has their own Citizens.

Generally, the states of the Union sustain toward each other the relationship of  independent sovereigns or independent foreign states,..
81 CJS 8.

Each state is foreign to one another, except for the powers that we gave to the federal government; to create interstate commerce laws, bankruptcy laws, counterfeiting laws; but the federal government was given no power to enforce them. They could not come into any state to enforce any federal law, they could only go into a federal area and enforce it.

Next is from Ruling Case Law:

A state may impose an excise upon the franchise of corporations engaging in a business which every citizen has a right to engage in freely. ... A right common to every citizen such as the right to own property or to engage in business of a character not requiring regulation cannot, however, be taxed as a special franchise by first prohibiting its exercise and then permitting its enjoyment upon the payment of a certain sum of money.
26 RCL 131-132.

I´m the private Citizen. You´re the franchisee. Can a corporation have citizens? No. They have franchises. Can the United States government have citizens? No, they can only have franchises. Have you heard of the Franchise Tax Board? They´re taxing your franchise here, as a U.S. citizen!

They´re legitimate! They tell you right up-front what you are! You´re just too busy watching the boob-tube.

How many people here are registered to vote? Did you know that when you register to vote, you put an automatic lien on all your property?

Chapter 5 BOND ISSUES Sec. 5300. Application by chapter

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this chapter apply to all bond issues proposed by a county, city and county, city, district or other political subdivision or by any agency, department, or board thereof, the security for which constitutes a lien on the property within the jurisdiction and the proposal for which is required to be submitted to the voters for approval.

This law is written so broad, say the local school district goes belly up, they can march into your house, strip you buck-naked, and take everything you own.

That´s why code-enforcement can come into your house, because they have a vested interest. You gave it to them when you registered to vote.

We´re electors. Up ´till 1940 all the Citizens signed the Great Register. We´re trying to get the Great Register reestablished. It was last sent to Sacramento in 1940, when they sent back federal voter registration instead. You register as a federal citizen, not as a state citizen.

They´ve done everything very legitimate, very honestly, very openly. You just didn´t pay attention.

Everybody´s seen the yellow fringe on the American flag, flying in schoolhouses, office buildings, courtrooms, I want you to read what that yellow fringe stands for:

Placing of fringe on national flag,.. are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within discretion of President as Commander-In-Chief of Army and Navy. 34
OpAttyGen 483 (1925).

That´s a military flag! A territorial flag. When Arizona was a territory, before it became a state, that´s what they had. They made a lot of movies of the yellow-fringed flag. They tell you up front, you´re in a federal territory.

The proper place for that yellow-fringed flag would be in the post office, military bases, Washington, D.C., or someplace like that. If you´re not in one of those federal areas, you shouldn´t be flying that flag. It only applies in a military post.

The government keeps two bookkeeping entries, there´s always two of everything. There´s two constitutions in the state of California. One for us Citizens, and one for you slaves. You have here the California Constitution of 1879. I want you to read section two, and tell me where the boundaries are:

SEC. 2. The boundaries of the state are those stated in the Constitution of 1849 as modified pursuant to statute. Sacramento is the capital of California.

They refer you to the 1849 Constitution. The one that created California. That one (1879) did not do anything. All the courts recognize there are two constitutions. The 1849 Constitution is a restriction and limitation on the government. The 1879 Constitution is a restriction and limitation on the slaves.

So, which do you want? The power to flow from the People to the government, or the government granting you a little privilege?

All the courts recognize that there are two constitutions. I want you to read the following. Everybody knows what a substitute school teacher is.

Although the present constitution is not the one under which the state was first formed, it is a substitute for that adopted in 1849, as amended in 1862, and the present government is a continuance of that established
11 Cal.Jur.2d 4.

It´s merely a substitute, waiting for the Citizens to come back. They´re always consistent! They never lie.

Next is the Congressional Record of 1967:

The 14th Amendment Is Unconstitutional.

The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article I. Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article I. Section 7.

3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union. Article V.

Congressional Record - House, June 13, 1967, p. 15641

In 1967 Congress tried to abolish the 14th Amendment. What would happen if they abolished the 14th Amendment? They would turn 250 million slaves free! Everybody would automatically revert back to state Citizens. The federal government would lose all their taxing, Food & Drug could not come in here, BATF could not come in here, IRS could not come in here, DEA could not come in here, code enforcement could not come in here. All their revenue raising measures would go down the tubes!

You´ve all heard judges say "I won´t hear that constitutional crap in my court! The constitution doesn´t apply in this courtroom!" Now read why he can say it:

An alien has no right to raise the question whether a statute is violative of Const. U.S. Art. 4. Sec 2. declaring that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.
 In re Johnson´s Estate, 73 P. 424 (1903).

A citizen can challenge the constitutionality of a statute; an alien cannot. A U.S. citizen is an alien to California.

Next court case you are getting is Hendrick v. Maryland, 59 L.Ed 385. Mr. Hendrick was a resident of the District of Columbia. In 1914, Mr. Hendrick got in his motor vehicle and went into Maryland. Then he did something wrong, and the police stopped and cited him.

Maryland had laws that all commercial vehicles had to have registration, plates, and the drivers had to have a license. Citizens did not. He was a resident of the District of Columbia, a U.S. citizen, and the police officer knew the distinction, so he cited him. Hendrick was convicted, and he appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1914 the Supreme Court stated that a U.S. citizen, when they leave the District of Columbia, are under the interstate commerce clause. As such, they can be regulated, controlled, and taxed.

You, as a U.S. citizen, are here in California under the interstate commerce clause. You can be regulated and controlled, you have no rights whatsoever except what they want to give you -- civil rights.

That was in 1914. In that same year, read what the California supreme court says:

The occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation, and therefore permitting a regulatory license fee, under the rule that when a calling or profession or business is attended with danger or requires a certain degree of scientific knowledge upon which others must rely, then legislation properly steps in and imposes conditions upon its exercise.
 In re Stork, 167 Cal 294 (1914).

They quote this as their authority to require U.S. citizens to have driver´s licenses. They don´t quote the rest of it, because it pertains to state Citizens:

The Motor Vehicle Act ... is not unconstitutional as making an arbitrary and unwarranted classification, in that it requires professional chauffeurs, or drivers of motor vehicles for hire, to pay an annual license tax, but exempts all other operators of such vehicles from such tax and regulation.
 In re Stork, 167 Cal 294 (1914).

Question: As a California Citizen, am I giving up my rights if I were to get a driver´s license?

You´d have to commit perjury to get a driver´s license.

I´d have to state that I´m a resident, right?

Right.

And citizens can´t have driver´s licenses, right?

Right. They won´t even give you one. I´m trying to get one, but they won´t issue it! Citizens are exempt. They can´t have one.

How many people here have a motor vehicle outside? You´ve just convicted yourselves, read the definition of "motor vehicle":

"Motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
USC  [United States Code] Title 18, Sec. 31.

You just told me you had a taxicab outside!

When you stand in front of the judge, and he asks if you have a vehicle outside, and you say "yes, your honor, I do" he takes judicial notice you admitted you´re involved in commercial activity.

How many people here have gotten a traffic ticket? Ever look up the term "traffic" in the dictionary? Interstate  commerce! That´s why on the ticket, it says "traffic", "non-traffic", and "misdemeanor".

Right after the 14th amendment was allegedly ratified California passed four codes. The Political Code, the Civil Code, the Civil Code of Procedure, and the Penal Code. Here is the Penal Code of 1871. I want you to read the definition of "person" and tell me where the Citizen is mentioned:

19. Where the term "person" is used in this code to designate the party whose property may be the subject of any offense, it includes this state, any other state, government or country which may lawfully own any property within this state, and all public and private corporations or joint associations as well as individuals.

 20. The word "person" includes bodies politic and corporate.


Where does it say "Citizen"? Tell me where I´m described in there.

There´s always a motive for everything the government does. What they wanted to do here was take your  allodial right to property away (Black´s Revised 4th):

ALLODIAL. Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal...

ALLODIUM. Land held absolutely in one´s own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens. An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof... 

(Ballentine´s 1948):

allodial ... Free; not held subordinately; opposed to "feudal." In England, all lands are held by the crown, and none are allodial. In the United States, all lands have been allodial since the American Revolution.

 allodium ... An allodial estate; an estate not held under a superior. See fee.

A U.S. citizen does not have the right to hold property in allodium. You´re a second-class citizen. If you have your property in allodium, you don´t pay land taxes.

All the land in California was given to the people in allodium. There are several court cases which say that the land of the thirteen original colonies was given to the people in allodium. They have the absolute sovereign right to own property. Remember it says "people", it does not say "persons" when it refers to allodium.  "Persons" are not "people"!

Next, you have California´s admission into the Union. Read the second paragraph:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of  America in Congress assembled, That the State of California shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.

California was admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original colonies in all respects whatsoever. All the land in California is given to the people in allodium.

This building is not land. This building is property. Land is land. Property is anything that can be moved. You, as a U.S. citizen, are property. Land is held by a sovereign. All the land in England belongs to the King of England. I am on the same status as the King of England. If I were to buy land, I would have it in allodium. I have the same type of authority.

Next is a court case from 1982:

Slater´s protestations to the effect that he derives no benefit from the United States government have no bearing on his legal obligation to pay income taxes. ... Unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability.
They never lie! They are always consistent in what they say!

Next is Revenue Ruling 57-576. This is our prime authority for asking our Social Security money back:

Social Security coverage extended to individuals employed by a foreign subsidiary of a domestic corporation pursuant to an agreement under section 3121(l) of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act is limited to United States citizens. Accordingly, such coverage ceases on the date that such an employee becomes a citizen of another country. Amounts paid under the agreement with respect to coverage of such individual prior to the date on which he became a  citizen of another country are not refundable.

Question: You mean we can ask for this money back?

Yes, but there´s a problem. We allege fraud when we ask for our Social Security money back, because we were never a United States citizen. There´s the problem, because if you allege fraud, they have to give you compound interest. But the government has written many, many letters stating if you do not have a Social Security number, you would not be subject to the income tax. So, if I was illegally and wrongfully entrapped into getting a Social Security number, I would get all my money from day one, plus compound interest. What they owe me would equal the federal debt!

Next is a deposition hearing by Virgil Cooper in Arizona. I want you to read the questions. Every question is a trick question, and every answer is the legally correct answer:

Q: Are you a citizen of the United States?

A: No, I am not.

Q: Are you a resident of Arizona?

A: No, I am not. I was born in Phoenix. I have lived in Maricopa County all my life, but I am not a resident. I do not reside.

Q: Are you registered to vote?

A: No, I am not.

Q: Do you have a driver´s license?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Do you have any motor vehicles registered in Arizona?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Are you employed?

A: No. I am not. I am not employed. I am not unemployed. I am not self-employed. I am not gainfully employed. In fact, I am not employable. But, I work. Besides, Arizona is a  right to work state.

Q: Do you pay state and federal resident income taxes?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Do you pay property taxes in Arizona?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Do you have a marriage license?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Do you have children enrolled in public school?

A: No, I do not. My children are home taught.

You´ve really done your homework!

You know what the definition of the word "employee" is? It was re-defined in the 1939 Public Salary Tax Act to mean "government worker". When you said you´re employed, you told me that you work for the government.

When you sign a W-4, what does it say at the top? "Employee´s Withholding Certificate". You just admitted under penalties of perjury that you work for the government. Remember, I told you that they always have two of everything? They have W-8 forms for state Citizens, and W-4 for slaves.

Next is what you have to say to a police officer when you get stopped with no driver´s license, and no registration:

Officer: I pulled you over because your vehicle has no license plates.

Citizen: Yes, officer, I do not have plates on my car. I removed them and sent them back to the DMV because they belonged to a resident involved in commercial activity. I asked them to send me proper plates for a Citizen. They have not done so yet. I have the paperwork in the car if you would like to see it.

Officer: May I see your driver´s license?

Citizen: I do not have a driver´s license as I do not drive commercially. I cancelled it with the DMV and asked them to send me proper ID for a Citizen to travel. They have not sent me anything yet. I have the paperwork in the car if you would like to see it.

Officer: Do you have any ID?

Citizen: Here is how I identify myself (present Personal ID).

Remember to be sober, polite, agreeable, and businesslike while keeping good eye contact and an assured tone of voice.

NEVER challenge an officer´s authority on the street --wait for court.

WORDS TO USE:

Car, machinery, conveyance.
Guests, friends, family.
Traveling, journeying.
Abode, living, housekeeping.

WORDS NOT TO USE:

Motor vehicle.
Passengers.
Driving.
Resident.

To learn more about state Citizenship, contact:

Richard McDonald
2nd Judicial District
585 Box Canyon Rd.
Canoga Park, California Republic
Join our Citizenship educational program
(818) 703-5037 voice
ICQ 259224
http://www.state-citizen.org

Citizens Law Hour
hosted by Republic Radio
7pm to 8pm PST
Monday - Thursday
http://www.republicradio.com/index2.htm

Go To:  A list of files that Richard McDonald offers to
Download For FREE to aid in one´s understanding of their rights.

See, Citizen or citizen? by Richard McDonald


Citizenship, income taxes and Constitutional limitations on government.

VIDEO: 14th Amendment Citizenship: Citizen or citizen?

Notes on PERSON


The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 612 F.2d 417, 425 (1979)


The word "inhabitant" has several meanings in law depending upon on the context. (footnote omitted) In some contexts it is equated with citizenship, (citations omitted); in other contexts, specifically that of the federal civil rights acts passed during the Reconstruction, (footnote omitted) "inhabitant" has been held not to mean "citizen." Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 690-692, 75 S.Ct. 656, 32 L.Ed. 766 (1887) .... (italics in original)

After comprehensive analysis of the intent of Congress which drafted this legislation, (footnote omitted), this court holds that the word "inhabitant" describes any person who is within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Upon introducing the provisions which eventually became 18 U.S.C. 242, its sponsor, Senator Stewart, explicitly stated that the bill protects all "persons." (footnote omitted) He noted that the bill "simply extends to foreigners, not citizens, the protection of our laws." (footnote omitted) (emphasis added)

He added:
This bill extends the equal protection of the laws to aliens, so that all persons who are in the United States shall have the equal protection of our laws. It extends the operations of the civil rights bill . . . to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. (italics in original)
United States v. Otherson, 480 F.Supp. 1369, 1370-1373 (1979)

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957


Plainly spoken, RIGHTS considered to be grants from our creator are clearly different from the ´civil rights´ that were/are granted by Congress to its own brand of franchised citizen in the 14th Amendment. See and study this chart.


Citizenship

For an interesting discussion of rights, privileges or immunities and the Fourteenth Amendment see Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 591 , 44 S. L.ed. 597, 601, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 448, 494

'... it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen.' Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 636 , 29 S. L. ed. 746, 753, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524, 535


CITE: 18 USC Sec. 911
EXPCITE: TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I - CRIMES, CHAPTER 43 - FALSE PERSONATION
HEAD: Sec. 911. Citizen of the United States
STATUTE: Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


NOTICE: Richard McDonald is not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.
Share

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
AntiShyster Magazine Attention Signing the Constitution Away
Aware Belligerent Claimant
Bonds Citizenship / nationality related items
Education Graphics
Health related Admiralty related
Howard Griswold History
Jerry Kirk Jurisdiction
Law related items Lee Brobst
Lewis Mohr Luis Ewing
Money Reading Material
Reading Room Stuff
Tax matters Travel related
Truth Video
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it is fast, free and secure!

Freedom-School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generally presented as "Freedom-School.com" - "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of Freedom-School.com used throughout. "You" is in reference to the user / visitor.

This is the fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and
defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support is not offered.

Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation as
there is no charge for things presented.
Freedom-School.com site relies on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.

The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

Freedom-School.com is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.
In addition, users may not use Freedom-School.com to engage in, facilitate or further unlawful conduct;
use the service in any way, or manner, that harms us or anyone connected with us or whose work is presented;
damage, disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected to the site)
or interfere with anyone´s use and enjoyment of the website.

All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common Law.
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use of the Freedom-School.com site. If there exists some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right to that thing as
we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the Freedom-School.com site or material contained within.

GOOGLE ANALYTICS: While we do not automatically collect personally identifiable information about you when you visit the Freedom-School.com site, we do collect non-identifying and aggregate information that we use to improve our Web site design and our online presence.
Visitors to this site who have Javascript enabled are tracked using Google Analytics. The type of information that Google Analytics collects about you includes data like: the type of Web browser you are using; the type of operating system you are using; your screen resolution; the version of Flash you may be using; your network location and IP address (this can include geographic data like the country, city and state you are in); your Internet connection speed; the time of your visit to the Freedom-School.com site; the pages you visit on the Freedom-School.com site; the amount of time you spend on each page of the Freedom-School.com site and referring site information. In addition to the reports we receive using Google Analytics data, the data is shared with Google. For more information on Google´s privacy policies, visit: http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/
Here is Google´s description of how Google Analytics works and how you can disable it: "Google Analytics collects information anonymously, and much like examining footprints in sand, it reports website trends without identifying individual visitors. Analytics uses its own cookie to track visitor interactions. The cookie is used to store information, such as what time the current visit occurred, whether the visitor has been to the site before, and what site referred the visitor to the web page. Google Analytics customers can view a variety of reports about how visitors interact with their website so they can improve their website and how people find it. A different cookie is used for each website, and visitors are not tracked across multiple sites. Analytics requires that all websites that use it must update their privacy policy to include a notice that fully discloses the use of Analytics. To disable this type of cookie, some browsers will indicate when a cookie is being sent and allow you to decline cookies on a case-by-case basis."

Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers´ DMCA Policy

the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, and/or work computers, make effort to be in compliance with 17 U.S.C. § 512 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). It is our policy to respond to any infringement notices and take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.

If your copyrighted material has been posted on the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers, in other than fair use capacity or if links to your copyrighted material are returned through our search engine and you want the material removed, you must provide a written communication that details the information listed in the following section. Please be aware that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys´ fees) if you misrepresent information listed on the site that is allegedly infringing on your alleged copyrights. We suggest that you may want to first contact competent legal assistance on this matter.

The following elements must be included in your copyright infringement claim:

* Provide evidence of the authorized person to act on behalf of the fully disclosed alleged owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Please notice that we generally do not deal with third parties.
* Provide sufficient contact information so that we may contact you. You must also include a valid email address.
* You must identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed and including at least one search term under which the material appears in Freedom-School.com search results.
* A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
* A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
* Must be signed by the authorized person to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly being infringed. (Proper ratification of commencement.)


Send the infringement notice via email to the postmaster at Freedom-School.com

Please allow 1-3 business days for an email response. Note that emailing your complaint to other parties such as our Internet Service Provider (ISP) or server host(s) will not expedite your request and may result in a delayed response due the complaint not being properly being filed.


Presentation Copyright© 2003, 2014
All Rights Reserved

H O M E