Perhaps you could explain to me how the government believes they own us as chattel?
The author is not an
Attorney or Counselor at law... what is written herein should not be construed
as legal advice... but as internet chatter
The states are DORMANT...not dead... they of necessity are alive, the
republic of states are the foundation upon which the democratic overlay rests.
Just because the particular body politic that formed the states has not caucused
or held conventions or any other acts in over 130 years does not mean that they
are dead....they are merely sleeping (or sick). What is acting in the place
of the states are quasi-states consisting of a new multi-national body politic
or "US Persons".
What has been lacking has been in us. Once we figure out WHO WE ARE... and where the judicial power of the United States has been deposited..(or hidden). we stand a chance of getting our Republic back.
Lincoln opened his convention with :If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.
Perhaps you could explain to me how the government believes they own us as chattel.
Well sure I can: READ the "Emancipation Proclamation" from Lincoln... Lincoln did not believe he had authority in a government of limited and enumerated powers to abolish slavery. If you read the emancipation proclamation carefully... you will note that he merely "freed" the slaves in states that were "currently in rebellion against the United States".... in other words he did not free all of the slaves... the slaves in the border states not in rebellion were not "freed" through that act.
Lincoln merely looked to the Constitution to exercise powers that were given to him by it... He could confiscate property under war the powers. Property that was being used to benefit the south in its war effort or any property to effect a conclusion of war could be confiscated.... With that proclamation the slaves passed from private property to public property.[owned by government] After the war as a condition of re-admission into the union... (never mind Lincoln’s One indissoluble union speech) the 13th amendment was passed abolishing private slavery. YOU BECAME GOVERNMENT OWNED CHATTEL WHEN YOU ASSUMED THE DESIGNATION OF FORMER SLAVES, [14th AMENDMENT CITIZENSHIP!]
U.S. Supreme Court
Groves v. Slaughter, 40 U.S. 15 Pet. 449 449 (1841)
Groves v. Slaughter
40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 449
If it be intended to convey the idea that slaves are designed to be deprived by the laws of the south of the qualities and character of persons, and of the rights of human beings, and to degrade them in all things to the level of chattels, of inanimate matter, or of the brutes that perish, it is a radical error, and one that has been too long circulated uncontradicted by the abolitionists. In some of the states, they are designated as real, as immovable property. Is it therefore designed to deprive them of the power of locomotion, or to convert them into a part of the land or soil of a state? Far otherwise. Nor does their designation as personal property convert them into mere chattels, and deprive them of the character of human beings. In the South this is well understood, and no such meaning is attached to these terms, but in the North they are seized on and perverted, as if slaves were regarded and treated by us as inanimate matter. No, they are, in every thing essential to their real welfare, regarded as persons; as such they are responsible and punishable for crimes; as such to kill them in cold blood is murder; to treat them with cruelty or refuse them comfortable clothing and food, is a highly penal offence, as such they are nursed in sickness and infancy, and even in old age, with care and tenderness, when the season of labour is past. To call them chattels or real estate, no more makes them in reality land or merely inanimate matter, than to call the blacks of the north freemen, makes them so in fact. When the constitution of Mississippi, and laws made in pursuance thereof, require that slaves shall be treated with humanity, commands that they shall be well clothed and fed, and that unreasonable labour shall not be exacted, are these provisions applicable to a mere chattel, which the owner may mutilate or destroy at pleasure? No. The master has no right to the flesh and blood, the bones and sinews of any man under the laws of the south; this is an abolition slander, and the right is to the services of the slave, so declared expressly in the laws of the south, and so recognised in the constitution of the United States, where slaves are described as "persons bound to service or labour," and so unanimously decided by the highest court of our state. Johnes' Case, Walker's Miss. Rep. 83. The right of the master is to the services of the slave, a right accruing only by virtue of the law of the state, and upon the terms therein prescribed. The rights of the master and slave are reciprocal under the laws of the south; the right of the master is the services of the slave for life, and the right of the slave as secured by law, to humane and proper treatment, to comfortable lodging, food and clothing, and to proper care in infancy, sickness and old age. These are the wages paid, and that must be paid by the master; and if the doctrine of the abolitionists be correct, that slave labour is dearer than free labour, then higher wages are thus paid in the south than in the north for the same amount of labour; and that it is much higher wages than is paid to the toiling and starving millions of Europe, no candid man will deny. Let me be accused of making no comparison between slaves and my countrymen, the free white labourers of all the states. No; they are fitted morally and intellectually for self-government, and the slaves are not so fitted; and therefore, even for their own benefit, must be controlled by others.
With the 14th amendment the emancipated slaves according to some contemporary law dictionaries at the time, became wards of the court. Between the 13th and until the 14th amendment they had no legal standing to sue in any Court of the United States. Prior to that time, only their masters had standing to sue in any Court of the United States. The 14th granted them a corporate national citizenship (a legal fiction) and also empowered Congress to grant civil rights to this newly created citizen.
The distinction between the two citizenships were and are... one as HEIRS AND POSTERITY OF "THE PEOPLE" THAT FORMED THE GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR PROTECTION WHICH CLAIMED INALIENABLE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS EVIDENCED BY A THOUSAND YEAR STRUGGLE OF ENGLISH LAW... the other newly created citizenship looks merely to the constitution which empowered congress to declare what their rights might be. This citizenship was created with the stated intention of giving "equal" rights ... you can read Title 42 section 1982 and you will find the term used to this day when congress passes civil rights legislation...it is building on this foundation....granting rights.... "as enjoyed by white citizens". If you have doubts... go read it. The problem is... the source of those rights is different.
Somehow the posterity of "THE PEOPLE" which established and ordained the Constitution of the United States lost their way... many saw the benefits that public slavery offered and willingly signed up for public benefits that were only designed and legally appropriate for emancipated slaves, those internal to the government... and foreign to our Constitutions. Upon willingly entering into this new body politic... your rights now come from a different source... you are a ward of the court... which is why all writs that come from the supreme court these days are writs of certiorari... it is the Court overseeing its ward out in the quasi-state territories. Writs of Certiorari lie from summary judgments from quasi-judicial courts that do not proceed after the course of the common law.
When we traded our state Citizenships in for national ones... we became foreigners in relationship to our own Constitution. As such... the courts and congress are not limited by the Constitution any longer. The constitutional right to assistance of Counsel (six amendment ... Counsellor at law no longer applies in a quasi judicial court that produces summary judgments NOT AFTER THE COURSE OF THE COMMON LAW). Corporations or corporate citizens (established by the benevolence of Congress are not entitled to the protections of the constitutions. Since legal fictions only exist on paper... they must be "represented" by an attorney....
In a quasi judicial court you will find a "right" to an attorney, not Counsel... which is convenient for them since Attorneys cannot challenge jurisdiction. If a court is asking you to "represent yourself"... it means... several things... 1) you are not appearing in your proper person... you are "representing someone or something other than you the man or woman imbued with inalienable God given rights. 2) That the court is asking you to waive the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the court because everyone knows that you cannot challenge jurisdiction by attorney. And if you are acting as your own attorney... it’s the same thing. (See Blacks Law dictionary:In propria persona or propria persona.)
THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS... IF YOU ARE A 14TH AMENDMENT NATIONAL CITIZEN... YOU HAVE BEEN CONFISCATED... AND ARE CHATTEL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. YOU ARE FREE TO PICK THEIR COTTON.
Truthfully... Congress and their agencies are from a historical perspective grading on a scale, fairly benevolent masters. WE all have it fairly good down here on the public plantation. So much that many from all over the world seek to enter. If you think otherwise, or have doubts.. go visit a dozen or so other third world countries and see if you are happy to get back or not?
Having said that... I still value my liberty and think it a worthy struggle to regain. I also feel fortunate to have been born prior to Roe V. Wade .
The 14th amendment protected class does not attach to anyone until one is "born within the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Common law rights on the other had originate from a whole different source.
If you have retained your state citizenship... Amend the record to show that you are "John Winston Doe III oF Virginia.... or whatever you are oF.... if you do not know what you are of... I suspect that you need a counselor. There is a way through this legal maze... but it would be foolish to do it without Counsel... which is a right guaranteed by the 6th amendment..(not attorney) If you are a state citizen you also have the right to plead your own cause and the right to a Counselor at law...and proceedings after the course of the common law... all of this is available if abated to the right court (if you find one let me know where it is).Since it is MANDATORY for congress to deposit the Judicial power of the United States in some court... put the onus on the court to abate the case to that court).
IS IT NECESSARY TO WAIVE A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT IN ORDER TO PRESERVE ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT?... USE THEM BOTH.
If the court you have been called before has never admitted or does not have counselors at law... it is their problem not yours... Demand Counsel . do not participate until counsel has been seated... which is an element of trial by jury UNLESS WAIVED...(It is just as important as the judge being there maybe more) s Just because everyone for the past 100 years has waived Counsel.... does not mean that you need to.
Once they come up with a counselor at law (good luck) ...qualify the counselor in open court....
1) Ask to see his credentials to practice before the court as a counselor at law... make sure he understands that he is in no way "REPRESENTING you by power of Attorney, and that he will be assisting you, standing beside you and he will not be binding you to any agreements.
Ask him if he can guarantee that you do not make any voluntary appearances in a non-constitutional court that does not proceed after the course of the common law. ....
2) Ask him if he is working for GRATUITIES?
3) Ask him if he is learned in the Law.
4) Ask him if he will challenge the judge in open court and requiring him to produce his civil commisson, oath of OFFICE and bond...pursuant to the constitution of 1789 .
5) have him qualify the court... see if the proceedings are after the course of the common law...
6) Ask him to verify that the judge holds a civil commission and oath of office pursuant to the original constitution of 1789 (not an oath of employee for a quasi-public corporation). (IF the judge does have an oath.... have him test every word and see if it is the SAME oath proscribed in quotation marks by law. (They change the words around... for deniability... they never told you they were taking an oath as an officer pursuant to the original constitution. The oath is in quotations... these people are lawyers and they could not get 18 words right?)
7) Ask to have the proceeding abated to a common law court of LAW which is your birthright if you are the posterity of "THE PEOPLE" (See Josephs Stories Commentaries on the Constitution).
8) ask him if he will assist you in swearing out a complaint if the judge holds no civil commission and is impersonating an officer.
9) Ask him in which court does the Judicial power of the United States reside?
10) Ask him what the penalty for treason against the United States consists of... and does it apply to Judges impersonating officers and taking arms up against citizens of the several states.
"The supreme court of the United States can only review writs of error from Courts that proceed after the course of the common law... to get to the supreme court you need to bounce your case off of a court of law not a quasi-judicial proceeding which merely has available discretionary writs or certiorari. What you want is a writ of error... which is not discretionary such as a writ of habeas corpus. (Not a writ in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus.... you want the real deal...not the reflection).
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA... DO ESTABLISH AND ORDAIN THIS CONSTITUTION FOR US AND OUR POSTERITY...."
This is the text of the 1886 Supreme Court decision granting corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Quoting from David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):
In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa
Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights
and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the
Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the
Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.
Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate
personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was
introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official
case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced
before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v.
Southern Pacific Railroad Company that
The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.
The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that
The DEFENDANT CORPORATIONS ARE PERSONS WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE CLAUSE IN SECTION 1 OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Thus it was that a two-sentence
assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under
the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby
changed the course of history.
THE DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE PERSONHOOD CREATES AN INTERESTING
LEGAL CONTRADICTION. THE CORPORATION IS OWNED BY ITS SHAREHOLDERS AND IS
THEREFORE THEIR PROPERTY. IF IT IS ALSO A LEGAL PERSON, THEN IT IS A PERSON
OWNED BY OTHERS AND THUS EXISTS IN A CONDITION OF SLAVERY -- A STATUS EXPLICITLY
FORBIDDEN BY THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. SO IS A CORPORATION A
PERSON ILLEGALLY HELD IN SERVITUDE BY ITS SHAREHOLDERS? OR IS IT A PERSON WHO
ENJOYS THE RIGHTS OF PERSONHOOD THAT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE PRESUMED OWNERSHIP
RIGHTS OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS? SO FAR AS I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE, THIS
CONTRADICTION HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTLY ADDRESSED BY THE COURTS.
If the states can be civilly dead, why can't an individual claim the same thing? Jim, I really respect your knowledge of the law. Perhaps you could explain to me how the government believes they own us as chattel.
Isn't the state acting as the agent of congress
in all things. Don't we live under concurrent jurisdiction? Aren't the states
civilly dead?
If the State is acting as the agent of Congress by
agreement, as it is in transportation cases, then how can it claim to be acting
with sovereignty under the Constitution ? It's a false claim. If
that's the sort of federal jurisdiction which you mean. A lot of success and
failure turns on procedure not law.
How successful do you think challenging federal
jurisdiction in a state actually is? And, do you think you should claim
diversity jurisdiction as often as possible?
I think it relates to every issue as so many States are enacting so many statutes as territories of the United States.
THE STATUTE IS PART OF THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CASE. SO, A DENIAL OF JURISDICTION IN THE PREMISES OBJECTS
TO THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO THE COMMISSION OF FACTS ALLEGED.
ACTS ALLEGED BEING WITHIN THE PREMISES OF THE STATUTE IS PART OF THE CONDITIONS
PRECEDENT FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE ON THE ACTS
ALLEGED. COURTS ENFORCING STATUTES DO NOT ACT JUDICIALLY. THEY ACT
ADMINISTRATIVELY AND THE JUDGE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK. A
CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION IN THE PREMISES PUTS A BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE
ADVERSARY TO SHOW OTHERWISE AND UNTIL HE DOES, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO
EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
JURISDICTION IN THE PREMISES, EQUITY PLEADING. THAT PART OF A BILL USUALLY
DENOMINATED THE STATING PART OF THE BILL. IT CONTAINS A NARRATIVE OF THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE, AND THE WRONGS OF WHICH HE COMPLAINS,
AND THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS BY WHOM DONE, AND AGAINST WHOM HE SEEKS REDRESS.
COOP. EQ. PL..9; BART. SUIT IN EQUITY, 27; MITF. EQ. PL. BY JEREMY, 43; STORY,
EQ. PL. 27; 4 BOUV, INST. N. 4158.
Other 14th amendment cases of importance
United States v. Susan B. Anthony,
24 Fed. Case 289 (1873). Quote " The rights of the Citizen of the State, as
such are not under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment and are
fully guaranteed by other provisions."
U.S. v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874). Quote " No
such express words exist, whcih could be made out to bind or include the
People within the purported Amendment 14 "All persons".
Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43,47 (1872). Quote "
The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons (non
whites *) domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be
brought within the operation of the naturalization laws becsuse native born and
whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of
citizenship." * thus a national citizenship was created under martial law rule.
Remember these people had a status under the common law as resident aliens.
Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266 (1968). This case
simply reduces to Congressional number which bespeak of the questionable
political validity of the Congress. This lack of Congressional political
validity undermines any except a voluntary recognation and acceptance of the
purported Amendment 14 by Citizen of the Several States. (YOU HAVE TO VOLUNTER
TO THE CONTRACT) How do we volunter? by our "silence." We make our mark
without considering what the meaning of words are in the contract.
These cases show a fight between states rights and federal rights as understood then.
To make maters worse, in 1886 the Supreme Court granted corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Quoting from David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):
In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa
Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights
and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the
Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the
Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.
Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate
personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was
introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official
case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced
before the beginning of argument in the case of Santa Clara County v.
Southern Pacific Railroad Company that …….
“ The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person ithin its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.”
The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that
The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by
a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law,
prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the
course of history.
The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction.
The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property.
If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus
exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the
Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally
held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights
of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its
shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has
not been directly addressed by the courts.
The case of *In re Merriam’s Estate*, which was affirmed in the Supreme Court in United States v. Perkins, lays down a solid foundation for something far more ominous that the mere fact that the United States is a corporation:
“It is suggested that the United States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, [485] so far as the State of New York is concerned. We think this contention has no support in reason or authority. A domestic corporation is the creature of this state created by its legislature, or located here and created by or under the laws of the United States. (Code of Civil Pro., § 3343, sub.
The United States is a government and body politic and corporate, ordained and established by the American people acting through the sovereignty of all the states.”
In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505 (1894).
In Volume 19, CJS (Corpus Juris Sec.) § 968 one finds the statement that “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State.” The above case is cited as the authority. That the United States is a foreign corporation is exactly what the court held. By affirming the decision, the United States Supreme Court concurred in *U.S. v. Perkins*, 163 U.S. 625 (1896). The legal definition of a "foreign corporation" is different from the colloquial use of the phrase.
Two attorneys made argument for the United States in the New York Court of Appeals. One attorney, Jesse Johnson, argued that “stock held by decedent in foreign corporations should not be included in the value on which the tax is to be levied.” However, Charles Baker argued that the “legacy in question on the death of the testator vested immediately in the United States, and became at once their property, free from liability to taxation.” Baker then confronted the court with an either/or position. Either the United States was not a corporation at all, and therefore not within the meaning of those terms employed in the New York laws, OR the United States was a domestic corporation entitled to all the privileges and immunities respectively. The court did not find for either argument. It held the United States was a corporation, it was not domestic, and was not immune from being taxed on the legacy of the estate. It further held that the tax imposed was on the right of succession and not on the property itself, rendering the United States argument with respect to stocks of foreign corporations completely moot. The Supreme Court affirmed New York’s holding by stating that /the legacy became the property of the United States only after it had suffered a diminution to the amount of the tax. However the Supreme Court also made clear that the United States was not one of the class of corporations intended by law to be exempt from taxation and that the United States was indeed a government corporation/.
There is no arguing to the contrary. The United States is a foreign corporation. In fact, if one reads Title 28 USCS § 297, the “compact states” of subsection (a) are clearly defined as “countries” in subsection (b). So if the United States is a foreign corporation in
relation to a group of “countries,” then what are the ramifications to those who have dual citizenship, especially when the foreign corporation formally enters into bankruptcy and becomes pledged to a third party creditor?
This is also supported by the statement; "The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation With Respect to a State", Volume 20, Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785 based on the definitions § 1783. "Definitions" and § 1784. "What Are Foreign Corporations".
"The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation With Respect to a State Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785
Gettysburg Address in 1864, and the Incorporation of District of Columbia by (Presidential) Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, under the Emergency War Powers Act and the Reconstruction Acts.Then reorganized June 11, 1878 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62 a “Corporation" with a legislature was established, with all the apparatus of a distinct government created (Incorporated) by (Presidential) Legislative Act, February 21, 1871
Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419 On June 20, 1874, the President with advice of Senate abolished and replaced the 1871 government with a commission consisting of three persons. 18 Stat. at L. 116, chap. 337
A subsequent act approved June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102, chap. 180) was enacted stating that the District of Columbia should 'remain and continue a municipal corporation,' as provided in 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to said District (brought forward from the act of 1871)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. CAMDEN IRON WORKS, 181 U.S. 453 (1901)
METROPOLITAN R CO v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 132 U.S. 231 (1889)
Corporate Officers
But by the Act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. chap. 180), a permanent form of government for the District was established. It provided ...and that the commissioners therein provided for should be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation."
The District of Columbia v. Henry E. Woodbury, 136 U.S. 472 (1890)
In UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, in Section 3002 Definitions, it states the following:
"United States" means—a Federal corporation;
IS THE U.S. A CORPORATION? IN SHORT... YES.
ARE YOU A CORPORATE 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZEN?
ARE YOU OWNED AS CHATTEL?
FOR HOW MANY MORE YEARS
DO YOU WANT TO PICK THEIR COTTON?