On Citizenship

by Frank Taucher

Please keep in mind that I am not an attorney, but a concerned Citizen who has been oppressed by government for publishing a book without first having registered my opinions with government. All that I have learned to date is presented in the context of my own personal First Amendment experience. PART I–Background To thoroughly review the question of citizenship, we must first return to the founding of our country and explore the concepts of unalienable rights and sovereignty. Long before the adoption of The Declaration of Independence, We The People were endowed with sovereign status by our Creator. These sovereign rights could not be taken away by another man or by any of man’s creations, such as government, but could be forfeited by voluntarily granting or giving them away. When We The Sovereign People declared our independence and founded of our country, the United States of America, we claimed certain of our rights to be unalienable1. You may recall that among our unalienable rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We declared these rights both for ourselves and our Posterity. The next step of We the People was to form a government which would secure our sovereignty, preserve our unalienable rights, protect our property, and so on. Each of the individual thirteen colonies had already been granted limited authority by We the People in their capacity as thirteen individual nations, but additional functions were required which could best be solved by a union of the States, such as a national military to protect the borders against foreign invasion. It was thus that We the People delegated certain powers to a national government, first in the Articles of Confederation and then in the Constitution for the United States of America in 1789. At first, Congress had no authority to legislatively lien any of We The People’s unalienable rights. This makes sense since, had such authority been delegated to Congress, We The People would no longer be sovereign—Congress would be sovereign. Such legislative powers not granted by the Constitution to Congress were further expressly retained by the States by the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Americans thus celebrated their freedom as sovereign State Citizens. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. –Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 Outside the United States, a collective United States Citizenship was also required as Americans traveled abroad. An example of this need might be seen when a Citizen in a foreign nation required U.S. embassy assistance. When used in such manner, the United States is thus thought of as a sovereign nation among the world family of nations. Congress has sovereign legislative authority over and legislates such affairs from the District of Columbia, which is the 100 square mile capitol of the United States. Hence, until the Civil War, although the term “citizen of the United States” was used, it primarily specified the Citizen’s sovereign State Citizenship, which for all practical purposes was the Citizen’s only citizenship within the borders of the United States of America. Such citizenship, of course, was not granted to all inhabitants of the several States. After the war, although the slaves were freed in the South, individual states, which retained their legislative sovereignty, refused to pass laws granting voting rights to blacks, refused to allow blacks to own property, and refused to allow blacks to enjoy other unalienable rights. As a consequence, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed which conferred on blacks certain rights the Legislatures of the individual Southern States refused to otherwise grant. Note the difference between the rights granted in these amendments by legislators and the rights inherent in sovereign State Citizens, which were granted by the Creator. The first set of rights were granted by man and were thus not rights at all, but privileges which may be withdrawn at the whim of the grantor. In this instance, repeal of the 14th Amendment would serve to withdraw the privileges. Contrast such servitude with unalienable rights granted by the Creator, which may not be affected by legislative decree. The 14th Amendment thus created a new group of people termed “persons” and another class of citizenship, the “citizen of the United States.” This citizenship is not for use outside the borders of the United States of America, but is the federal plantation into which the blacks were ushered. Federal citizens, U.S. citizens and citizens of the United States are thus synonymous terms and are those persons who receive benefits or privileges from or are aliens that have been admitted as citizens to the United States. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c) (the Internal Revenue Code) defines this citizenship as follows: “Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.” One should examine very closely what at first appears to be plain and simple language in this regulation. Note, for example, that the word “person,” also used in the 14th Amendment, is again specified. A “person” in law is a legal entity which has rights and duties and includes corporations, trusts, estates, and other fictions of law. Note also that the singular “its” is substituted for “their” (as in the jurisdiction of the “United States” and not the sovereign 50 states in union), that the citizen defined is the uncapitalized 14th Amendment or federal plantation citizen and not the sovereign Citizen, and that the key term, “United States,” is undefined. “United States,” as used in this definition and in the federal plantation, appears to mean ONLY the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the federal “enclaves” which have been ceded to the United States (such as forts, docks, buildings, and so on) by acts of the 50 State Legislatures. Prior to Statehood, such “Territories” as Oregon, Louisiana, Utah, the Northwest Territories, and so on were also part of this definition. The 50 sovereign States are not included in the District of Columbia federal plantation. The key jurisdictional question thus implies that there are others who are born or naturalized in the United States, but who are not “subject to its jurisdiction.” 3A Am Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens, explains: A Person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if this birth occurs in territory over which the United States is sovereign . . . “Territory” is specified because the United States cannot be sovereign over the States since the States already claim such sovereignty. Congress has exclusive legislative authority and jurisdiction over this federal “United States” which it derives from from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America. And what about Constitutional rights on the federal plantation? . . . [T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution. . . In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States . . . And in general the guaranties (sic) of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable. – Hooven & Allison & Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) Constitutional protections are nonexistent. If you’re still with me, your jaw should be bouncing off the floor. Multiple definitions of the “United States?” Multiple citizenships? A federal plantation for blacks? Surely, you must be thinking, if this were true, it would be the biggest story of the century and the press would have long ago done their job and exposed the fraud . Well, it is true, and they haven’t exposed it, so here’s the factual evidence from no less an authority than the Supreme Court itself: It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. – Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the other, and each has citizens of its own . . . – United States v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person. – Gardina v Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909) A person who is a citizen of the United States is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, — the right to declare who are its citizens. – State v Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) The issue as to whether there are different meanings to the term “United States,” and whether there are three different “United States” operating within the same geographical area, and one “United States” operating outside the Constitution over its own territory, in which it has citizens belonging to said “United States,” was settled in 1900 by the Supreme Court in De Lima v Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, and in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244. In Downes, Justice Harlan dissenting stated as follows: The idea prevails with some—indeed it found expression in arguments at the bar—that we have in this country substantially and practically two national governments: one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. He went on to say on page 823: I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism . . . It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution. – Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 An unpublished brief entitled “Memorandum in Support of Request for the District Court to Consider the T.R.O. and Injunction by the Magistrate” by John Knox, Knox v U.S., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Texas, Case No. SA-89-CA-1308 stated (paraphrased): This theory of a government operating outside the Constitution over its own territory with citizens of the United States belonging thereto was further confirmed in 1922 by the Supreme Court in Balzac v Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 300 where that Court affirmed that the Constitution does not apply outside the limits of the 50 States of the Union . . . the “United States” was given exclusive power over the territories and their citizens of the “United States” residing therein. Finally, in 1945, the Supreme Court agreed to settle, once and for all, this question of multiplicity: The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. – Hooven & Allison & Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) To summarize, when traveling abroad, you come under the jurisdiction of the President through his agents in the U.S. State Department, where “U.S.” refers to the sovereign nation. You are a “Citizen of the United States.” It is the second citation that defines the federal plantation. Here Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. In this sense, the term “United States” is a singular noun. You are a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves OR you are living abroad. Living abroad might mean that you are physically living in a foreign country, but might also mean that you are living in one of the States of the Union. Hence, even a person living in one of the sovereign States could still be a member of the federal plantation and a “citizen of the United States”. Finally, the term “United States” can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united under the Constitution for the United States of America. The federal plantation is not included in this definition because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. Rights are retained by the States in the 9th and 10th Amendments and you are a “Citizen of these United States” or of “The States United”. Note that these three citizenships are in addition to that of the sovereign State Citizen. Even the United States Code, Title 28, Section 1746, has two oaths that may be executed, one within the United States and one without the United States. This latter oath is subject to the laws not of the United States, but of the United States of America. PART II-The CFTC & NFA Do you understand how the CFTC / NFA were able to claim that I had to register my book when such infringements are seemingly so clearly prohibited by the First Amendment? The only logical explanation I have been able to conclude is the CFTC/NFA claimed jurisdiction over me through the District of Columbia federal plantation where Constitutional protections do not exist. The alternative explanation suggests that CFTC/NFA officials disregarded their Oath of Office to uphold my First Amendment Constitutional protections. Because it appears that CFTC/NFA officials consider me to be a citizen of the federal plantation, they have been able to claim all these years that I must first license my sacred and unalienable right to create and dispose of property through the fruits of my labors prior to managing funds for other Citizens who might wish to avail themselves of my abilities. That the rights to lease land and to accept employment as a laborer for hire are fundamental rights, inherent in every free citizen, is indisputable. – United States v Morris, 125 F.Rept. 322, 331 (1903) If the hereinabove is true, we should be able to find evidence of such in the laws of any federal agency. Let’s therefor look at how the CFTC, the agency at hand, exercises its authority. CFTC jurisdiction extends to interstate commerce transactions pursuant to Section 2 (b) of the Commodity Exchange Act which states that, “...the transaction...shall be considered to be in interstate commerce if the article is...sent from one State...to another State.” The paragraph then proceeds to define “State” to include, “Territory, the District of Columbia, possession of the United States, and foreign nation.” I rest my case. Rule on the federal plantation is not by law, but by cronyism, lobbyist, money, and power. Merit and achievement are irrelevant. Such conclusion also explains how the tobacco companies are being forced into settlement in spite of juries across the land being unwilling to hold them liable for the bad choices made by consenting adults. Such is a game that most American Citizens do not want or know how to play, preferring instead to be left alone to enjoy their serenity and only asking of government that the potholes be fixed and the kids educated. I have forwarded details of felony offenses by government employees who oppressed my First Amendment right to speak and thereby perjured their Oath of Office to Congressional representatives and senators from Oklahoma. These specifically include Steve Largent, Tom Coburn, Don Nickles, Jim Inhofe, Frank Istook, and congressmen and senators from other States who serve on the House and Senate Agricultural Committees which oversee the CFTC/NFA. I have also reported these actions to the United States Attorney, the Department of Justice, and the CFTC Inspector General for criminal prosecution. I have been deeply struck by their silence. Is such silence any wonder in light of the benefit members of Congress receive in their position as King? Who among them will uphold the Constitution and act to correct this fraud upon We The People and our Posterity? Who among them will uphold their Oath of Office? The Plaintiffs filed motion for summary judgement in Taucher v. CFTC on Friday, October 23, 1998. A decision is expected in spring, 1999. CFTC and NFA officials continue to draw their salaries and benefits. Further information may be obtained from Frank Taucher at www.supertraderalmanac.com Editor’s Note: The views of the author are his own.