Table 1: Statutory v. Constitutional ContextsPosted on February 9, 2015 by David Robinson
It is very important to understand that there are TWO separate, distinct, and mutually exclusive contexts in which geographical “words of art” can be used at the federal or national level:
The purpose of providing a statutory definition of a legal “term” is to supersede and not enlarge the ordinary, common law, constitutional, or common meaning of a term. Geographical words of art include:
- “United States”
- “U.S. person”
The terms “State” and “United States” within the Constitution implies the constitutional states of the Union and excludes federal territory, statutory “States” (federal territories), or the statutory “United States” (the collection of all federal territory).
|This is an outcome of the separation of powers doctrine. |
See: Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
- Statutory “States” as indicated in 4 U.S.C. §110(d) and “States” in nearly all federal statutes are in fact federal territories and the definition does NOT include constitutional states of the Union.
- The statutory “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 USC §110(d) includes federal territory and excludes any land within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state of the Union.
- Terms on government forms assume the statutory context and NOT the constitutional context.
- Domicile is the origin of civil legislative jurisdiction over human beings. This jurisdiction is called “in personam jurisdiction”.
- Since the separation of powers doctrinecreates two separate jurisdictions that are legislatively “foreign” in relation to each other, then there are TWO types of political communities, two types of “citizens”, and two types of jurisdictions exercised by the national government. “It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?” [Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]
- A human being domiciled in a state and born or naturalized anywhere in the Union is a statutory “alien” in relation to the national government and a non-citizen national pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. §1452.
- You can be a statutory “alien” pursuant to 8 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3)(i) and a constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment “Citizen” AT THE SAME TIME. Why? Because the Supreme Court ruled in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 653 (1945), that there are THREE different and mutually exclusive “United States”, and therefore THREE types of “citizens of the United States”. Here is an example: “The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States [***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the [***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories [STATUTORY citizens], though within the United States
- , were not [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizens.
- ” [Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394(1873)]
- , were not [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizens.
The “citizen of the United States” mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment is a constitutional “citizen of the United States”, and the term “United States” in that context includes states of the Union and excludes federal territory. Hence, you would NOT be a “citizen of the United States” within any federal statute, because all such statutes define “United States” to mean federal territory and EXCLUDE states of the Union. For more details, see:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
- Your job, if you say you are a “citizen of the United States” or “U.S. citizen” on a government form ( a VERY DANGEROUS undertaking!) is to understand that all government forms presume the statutory and not constitutional context, and to ensure that you define precisely WHICH one of the three “United States” you are a “citizen” of, and do so in a way that excludes you from the civil jurisdiction of the national government because domiciled in a “foreign state”. Both foreign countries and states of the Union are legislatively “foreign” and therefore “foreign states” in relation to the national government of the United States. The following form does that very carefully:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
- Even the IRS says you CANNOT trust or rely on ANYTHING on any of their forms and publications. We cover this in our Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007. Hence, if you are compelled to fill out a government form, you have an OBLIGATION to ensure that you define all “words of art” used on the form in such a way that there is no room for presumption, no judicial or government discretion to “interpret” the form to their benefit, and no injury to your rights or status by filling out the government form. This includes attaching the following forms to all tax forms you submit:9.1. Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm9.2. Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Thanks to: http://mainerepublicemailalert.com
Last edited by PurpleSkyz on Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total