Hi. As of 7/01/01, I will no longer be working on this page. If you take your time and read all of the information contained in the various sources I have provided, it should be evident why. Have fun reading!
I should point out first that the point of Dwayne's Citizenship Page is not to encourage people to become "sovereign citizens." I, like you, read the information and became interested in what these people had to say. However, I stopped to learn how to do legal research because I saw that the information repeated itself and there were no clear cut explanations. I even went so far as to mail the post office and ask them what my true and correct address was. They replied that they didn't keep records on who lived where, and in fact, I found later on that it is both illegal and illogical for the post office to keep track of names and to hold two sets of addresses for everyone in the United States. The cost alone would be astronomical, and I don't think the GAO or the taxpayers would go for it.
I revised Dwayne's Citizenship Page as a result of this information to reflect the truth in this matter. If you wish to learn more about this subject, you will have to read the complete text of the sources provided. Tell me, can you win an argument with someone if you are quoting an irrelevant precedent? No, of course not.
Therefore, one must read on his own. It is the only way to ensure accuracy and truth.
Still want to talk with me? No problem.
Write Back.
You are taken to be knowlegable of the law when you step into a courtroom. For more on this subject, read this article from TaxGate.com. Though it deals mainly with taxation, the information about American law is EXTREMELY useful.
Given the complicated nature of many subjects in American law, I seriously doubt that you will be seen as incompetent by a judge, and I do not believe it to be a major concern. If you would like more information, review Corpus Juris Secundum (a big blue book), Volume 7, "Assistance to Attorney and Client", specifically Section 2, pages 795-796, and Section 4, pages 799-803
I would, of course, be both wrong and incompetent if I neglacted to mention the reason why attorneys must be licensed in the first place. For that you should review Part III "What Constitutes Practice of Law; Unlawful or Unauthorized Practice" Sections 29-42, pages 857-894. To quote from Section 30, pages 864-865:
"The purpose of, and the justification for, excluding from the practice of law persons not admitted to the bar is the protection of the public from being advised and represented in legal matters by incompetent and unreliable persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little control."
Minimal legal fees
I can assure you that you will be much more interested in the outcome than any third party possibly can
You don't have another client who might need your attention, though any reasonably good lawyer should have enough time for your case and that of another.
I cannot stress this enough: You cannot depend on anyone else's knowledge of the law.You don't know what is known by someone, and you don't know what is not known by someone.The only way to be absolutely sure that you are proceeding in a lawful manner and getting the best defense (or offense) you possibly can is to know it for yourself.
"Section 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and
instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an
unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary
power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
While I do not hold the opinion that the people working in and for the federal and state governments are "out to get the people," I still find those two clauses, among many others, interesting because it insures that the people are above their government.
This is not to say that you should not consult with a lawyer before making any legal arguments; you should. Someone who has made a career of law can give you invaluable assistance. This is also not to say that you should never hire an attorney-at-law; if you are not learned in the law, or do not have the ability to defend yourself, you should. I am simply saying that you should understand the various laws, determine your various rights, and to deal with the various people who work for the municipal, state and federal governments who are sworn to uhpold those laws.
Now, On To The Issues...
The Concept of State Citizenship is a Reality, But Not Quite In The Sense You May Have Heard
For more information, find and review the following materials:
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, U.S. Constitution
Amendment XIV, Section 1, U.S. Constitution
Your state's Constitution
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Volume 2: "B to Civil Procedure", pages 336-339, "Citizens"
U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, 82nd Congress, Second Session, June 27, 1952: Legislative History of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Pages 1674-1676
Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 14: "Cemeteries to Civil Rights 142", pages 426-452, "Citizens" (another way of citing this would be 14 C.J.S. Citizens)
Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 16B: "Constitutional Law", Sections 649-699, pages 358-467
The Constitutional Law Dictionary by Ralph C. Chandler et. al., Volume I: "Individual Rights", pages 445-446, "Privileges and Immunities Clause"
The United States Code Annotated, Title 28- Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Section 1332, pages 5-12, especially footnotes
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, St. George Tucker Edition [1803 AD], Volume I, Appendix, Note D: "Of the Constitution of The United States", pages 140-377
SUMMARY
In American Law, and only in certain selected cases, will a person or a corporation be considered either a Citizen of his state or a Citizen of the United States for the purposes of that trial. Otherwise, a person born in one state has all the rights and privileges which come from the US Constitution, and from the Constitution of the state they happen to be in at the time (unless that person is in a US Territory, in which case, the state rights may not necessarily apply.) Besides, there are advantages to having two sets of rights to fall back on. In essence, you have the protection of two governments: technically speaking, all of the states of countries, and the terms Commonwealth, Territory, State, Democracy, Republic, etc. can be used interchangeably to describe the United States. (More on this to come)
Being a State Citizen and not a Federal Citizen, even though one is implied in the other, WILL NOT make you a national of the United States. In addition, I can find no evidence of the term "American National," a term which some people believe to exist.
The problem with the subject of "State" Citizenship is that there has never been much discussion on the subject, and now for the last few years, there are many people making a lot of claims about things which may or may not be true, and because people have not learned to read law and do research for themselves, they are being led in the wrong directions. I hope this page and its contents can shed some light on this subject.
If it is your desire, after studying, to attempt to act as a Citizen of the State you were born in, and not as a citizen of the United States, you will have to do legal research on the laws of your state, as well as the laws of the United States, in order to determine both the advantages and disadvantages of taking such an action. But remember, that is not the purpose of the information on this page.
The Internal Revenue Laws
After learning how to do legal research, I have found some compelling information about the Internal Revenue Laws. The coming essay will be pretty long. Please be patient. In the meantime, you should, at the very least read this:
One can expect quite a few confrontations between militia of the several states and the militia groups if and/or when the state and federal government decide to make a case of it.
The Common Law...
is mentioned in the Constitution at Amendment 7, but according to Article VI, it is not the Law of the Land.
The following commentary on the Common Law appeared on one of Excite.com's former message boards: ". . . the INDEPENDENT jurisprudential significance of the English Common Law is basically of historical interest. What we've liked of the common law, we've embedded in our constitutions and statutes--you'd be very hard pressed these days to find much law (and this differs from the early days of the Republic when lawyers needed to study Blackstone)that is not derived from an American constitution or statute or a court decision interpreting same. Incidentally, the common law extends way beyond matters covered by our Bill of Rights--it encompasses family law, torts, criminal law, contract law, agency law, etc. The odds are that a matter inconsistent with the common law really wouldn't be an issue covered under the Bill of Rights. Personally, I'm quite comfortable operating with a legal regime created by people responsible to the electorate. The common law was a thing of judges and tradition, and I find the legislative process more inherently appealing."
I will have more on these topics soon enough, but my suggestion to anyone interested in any movement of any kind ("right-wing", "left-wing", "conservative", "liberal", "communist", "democrat", "republican", "whig", etc.) is to not merely accept any views of any particular belief without deeply interrogating them.
If a court case is quoted, find the case and read the case in its entirety. If a law is quoted, find the law, read the legislative history, completely understand the law and its purpose. This is what I recommend.
I hope you've enjoyed the contents of this little page.
