                           Chapter 11:
                           Sovereignty
                                
                                
     The issue  of jurisdiction as it relates to sovereignty is a
major key  to understanding  our system  of government  under the
Constitution.     In  the   most  common   sense  of   the  word,
"sovereignty" is  autonomy, freedom  from external  control.  The
sovereignty of  any government  usually extends  up to,  but  not
beyond the  borders  of  its  jurisdiction.    This  jurisdiction
defines a  specific  territorial  boundary  which  separates  the
"external" from  the "internal", the "within" from the "without".
It may  also define a specific function or set of functions which
a government may lawfully perform within a particular territorial
boundary.   Black's  Law  Dictionary,  Sixth  Edition,  describes
sovereignty as follows:

     ... [T]he  international independence  of a  state, combined
     with the  right and power of regulating its internal affairs
     without foreign dictation.

On a  similar theme,  Black's defines  "sovereign states"  to  be
those which are not under the control of any foreign power:

     No  foreign   power  or  law  can  have  control  except  by
     convention.   This power  of independent  action in external
     and internal relations constitutes complete sovereignty.

     It is a well established principle of law that the 50 States
are "foreign"  with respect  to each  other, just  as the federal
zone is  "foreign" with  respect to each of them (In re Merriam's
Estate, 36  NE 505  (1894)).   The status of being foreign is the
same as  "belonging to"  or being  "attached to" another state or
another jurisdiction.   The  proper legal distinction between the
terms  "foreign"   and  "domestic"   is  best   seen  in  Black's
definitions of foreign and domestic corporations, as follows:

     Foreign corporation.   A  corporation doing  business in one
     state though chartered or incorporated in another state is a
     foreign corporation  as to the first state, and, as such, is
     required to  consent to  certain conditions and restrictions
     in order to do business in such first state.

     Domestic corporation.   When  a corporation is organized and
     chartered in a particular state, it is considered a domestic
     corporation of that state.

     The federal  zone is  an area  over which Congress exercises
exclusive legislative  jurisdiction.   It is  the area over which
the federal  government exercises  its sovereignty.   Despite its
obvious importance,  the subject of federal jurisdiction had been
almost entirely  ignored outside  the courts until the year 1954.
In that  year, a  detailed  study  of  federal  jurisdiction  was
undertaken.   The occasion  for the  study arose  from  a  school


                        Page 11 - 1 of 18

                                                The Federal Zone:


playground, of  all places.   The  children of  federal employees
residing on  the grounds  of a  Veterans' Administration hospital
were not  allowed to  attend public schools in the town where the
hospital was  located.   An administrative  decision against  the
children was  affirmed by  local courts,  and finally affirmed by
the State  supreme court.  The residents of the area on which the
hospital was  located were  not "residents"  of the  State, since
"exclusive legislative  jurisdiction" over  this  area  had  been
ceded by the State to the federal government.

     A  committee  was  assembled  by  Attorney  General  Herbert
Brownell, Jr.  Their detailed study was reported in a publication
entitled Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States, April
1956 (Volume  I) and  June 1957  (Volume II).    The  committee's
report demonstrates,  beyond any doubt, that the sovereign States
and their  laws  are  outside  the  legislative  and  territorial
jurisdiction of the United States** federal government.  They are
totally outside  the federal  zone.   A plethora  of evidence  is
found in  the myriad of cited court cases (700+) which prove that
the  United   States**  cannot   exercise  exclusive  legislative
jurisdiction outside  territories or  places purchased  from,  or
ceded by,  the States  of the  Union.   Attorney General Brownell
described the committee's report as an "exhaustive and analytical
exposition of  the law  in this  hitherto little explored field".
In his  letter of  transmittal to President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Brownell summarized the two volumes as follows:

     Together, the  two parts  of this Committee's report and the
     full implementation  of its  recommendations will  provide a
     basis for reversing in many areas the swing of "the pendulum
     of power * * * from our states to the central government" to
     which you  referred in  your address  to the  Conference  of
     State Governors on June 25, 1957.

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                  [Letter of Transmittal, page V, emphasis added]

     Once a  State is  admitted into  the  Union,  its  sovereign
jurisdiction is  firmly established  over a predefined territory.
The  federal  government  is  thereby  prevented  from  acquiring
legislative jurisdiction, by means of unilateral action, over any
area within the exterior boundaries of this predefined territory.
State assent is necessary to transfer jurisdiction to Congress:

     The Federal  Government cannot,  by unilateral action on its
     part, acquire  legislative jurisdiction over any area within
     the exterior  boundaries of  a State.  Article 1, Section 8,
     Clause 17,  of the  Constitution, provides  that legislative
     jurisdiction may  be transferred  pursuant to its terms only
     with the consent of the legislature of the State in which is
     located the area subject to the jurisdictional transfer.

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                             [Volume II, page 46, emphasis added]


                        Page 11 - 2 of 18

                                                      Sovereignty


     Under Article  1, Section  8, Clause 17 of the Constitution,
States of  the Union  have enacted  statutes  consenting  to  the
federal acquisition  of any  land, or of specific tracts of land,
within those   States.  Secondly, the federal government has also
made  "reservations"   of  jurisdiction  over  certain  areas  in
connection with the admission of a State into the Union.  A third
means for transfer of legislative jurisdiction has also come into
considerable use  over time, namely, a general or special statute
whereby  a   State  makes   a  cession   of  specific  functional
jurisdiction  to  the  federal  government.    Nevertheless,  the
Committee report  explained that  "... the  characteristics of  a
legislative jurisdiction  status are  the same no matter by which
of the  three means  the Federal Government acquired such status"
[Volume II,  page 3].   There  is simply  no federal  legislative
jurisdiction without  consent by  a State, cession by a State, or
reservation by the federal government:


     It scarcely  needs to  be said  that unless there has been a
     transfer of  jurisdiction (1)  pursuant to  clause 17  by  a
     Federal acquisition  of land  with State  consent, or (2) by
     cession from  the State to the Federal Government, or unless
     the Federal  Government has  reserved jurisdiction  upon the
     admission of  the State, the Federal Government possesses no
     legislative jurisdiction  over any area within a State, such
     jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the State ....

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                             [Volume II, page 45, emphasis added]


     The areas  which the  50 States  have properly  ceded to the
federal government are called federal "enclaves":


     By this  means some  thousands of  areas have become Federal
     islands,  sometimes  called  "enclaves,"  in  many  respects
     foreign to  the States  in which  they  are  situated.    In
     general, not  State but Federal law is applicable in an area
     under the  exclusive legislative  jurisdiction of the United
     States**,  for   enforcement  not   by  State   but  Federal
     authorities, and  in many  instances not  in  State  but  in
     Federal courts.

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                              [Volume II, page 4, emphasis added]


     Once a State surrenders its sovereignty over a specific area
of land, it is powerless over that land; it is without authority;
it cannot  recapture  any  of  its  transferred  jurisdiction  by
unilateral action,  just as the federal government cannot acquire
jurisdiction over State area by its unilateral action.  The State
has transferred its sovereign authority to a foreign power:


                        Page 11 - 3 of 18

                                                The Federal Zone:


     Once a  State has,  by one  means  or  another,  transferred
     jurisdiction to  the United  States**,  it  is,  of  course,
     powerless to  control many  of the  consequences;    without
     jurisdiction, it  is without the authority to deal with many
     of the  problems, and having transferred jurisdiction to the
     United States**,  it cannot  unilaterally capture any of the
     transferred jurisdiction.
                                                                 
              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                                              [Volume II, page 7]
                                                 [emphasis added]
                                                                 
                                                                 
     Once sovereignty  has been  relinquished, a  State no longer
has the  authority to  enforce criminal  laws in  areas under the
exclusive jurisdiction  of the  United States**.  Privately owned
property in  such areas  is beyond  the taxing  authority of  the
State.  Residents of such areas are not "residents" of the State,
and hence  are not subject to the obligations of residents of the
State, and are not entitled to any of the benefits and privileges
conferred by  the State upon its residents.  Residents of federal
enclaves usually cannot vote, serve on juries, or run for office.
They do  not, as  matter of  right, have access to State schools,
hospitals, mental institutions, or similar establishments.


     The acquisition  of exclusive  jurisdiction by  the  Federal
Government renders  unavailable to  the residents of the affected
areas the  benefits of  the laws  and judicial and administrative
processes of the State relating to adoption, the probate of wills
and administration  of estates,  divorce, and many other matters.
Police, fire-fighting,  notaries, coroners,  and similar services
performed by,  or under,  the authority  of a State may result in
legal sanction  within a  federal enclave.   The "old" State laws
which apply  are only those which are consistent with the laws of
the "new" sovereign authority, using the following principle from
international law:


     The vacuum which would exist because of the absence of State
     law or  Federal legislation with respect to civil matters in
     areas under  Federal exclusive  legislative jurisdiction has
     been partially  filled by  the courts,  through extension to
     these areas  of a rule of international law that[,] when one
     sovereign takes over territory of another[,] the laws of the
     original sovereign  in effect  at the  time of the taking[,]
     which are  not inconsistent with the laws or policies of the
     second[,] continue  in effect,  as laws  of  the  succeeding
     sovereign, until changed by that sovereign.
     
              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                    [Volume II, page 6, commas added for clarity]
                                                 [emphasis added]
                                                                 


                        Page 11 - 4 of 18

                                                      Sovereignty


     It is clear, then, that only one "state" can be sovereign at
any given  moment in  time, whether that "state" be one of the 50
Union States,  or the  federal government of the United States**.
Before ceding  a tract  of land to Congress, a State of the Union
exercises its  sovereign  authority  over  any  land  within  its
borders:


     Save only  as they  are subject  to the  prohibitions of the
     Constitution, or  as their  action in some measure conflicts
     with the powers delegated to the national government or with
     congressional legislation  enacted in  the exercise of those
     powers, the  governments of  the states are sovereign within
     their territorial  limits and  have  exclusive  jurisdiction
     over persons and property located therein.

                        [72 American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 4]
                                                 [emphasis added]

After a  State has  ceded  a  tract  of  land  to  Congress,  the
situation is  completely different.   The United States**, as the
"succeeding sovereign",  then exercises  its sovereign  authority
over that  land.  In this sense, sovereignty is indivisible, even
though the  Committee's report  documented numerous situations in
which  jurisdiction  was  actually  shared  between  the  federal
government and  one of  the 50  States.   Even in this situation,
however, sovereignty rests either in the State, or in the federal
government, but  never both.   Sovereignty  is the  authority  to
which there  is politically  no superior.   Outside  the  federal
zone, the  States of  the Union  remain sovereign, and their laws
are completely  outside the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of
the federal government of the United States**.


     Now, if  a State of the Union is sovereign, is it correct to
say that  the State  exercises an  authority to  which  there  is
absolutely no  superior?   No, this  is not  a correct statement.
There is  no other  political  body  which  is  superior  to  the
political body  which retains  sovereignty.  The  sovereignty  of
governments is  an authority  to which  there is  politically  no
superior, but there is absolutely a superior body.  The source of
all sovereignty  in a constitutional Republic like the 50 States,
united by  and under  the Constitution  for the  United States of
America, is the people themselves.  Remember, the States, and the
federal government  acting inside those States, are both bound by
the terms  of a  contract known  as the U. S. Constitution.  That
Constitution is  a contract  of delegated powers which ultimately
originate  in   the  sovereignty  of  the  Creator,  who  endowed
creation, individual  people like you and me, with sovereignty in
that Creator's image and likeness.  Nothing stands between us and
the Creator.  I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court of
the United  States was  never more eloquent when it described the
source of sovereignty as follows:



                        Page 11 - 5 of 18

                                                The Federal Zone:


     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.    It  is
     indeed,  quite  true,  that  there  must  always  be  lodged
     somewhere, and  in some  person or  body, the  authority  of
     final decision;   and  in many  cases of mere administration
     the responsibility  is purely political, no appeal except to
     the ultimate  tribunal of  the public  judgement,  exercised
     either in  the pressure  of  opinion  or  by  means  of  the
     suffrage.   But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and
     the  pursuit   of  happiness,   considered   as   individual
     possessions, are  secured by  those maxims of constitutional
     law which  are the monuments showing the victorious progress
     of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization
     under the  reign of  just and  equal laws,  so that,  in the
     famous language  of the  Massachusetts Bill  of Rights,  the
     government of  the commonwealth "may be a government of laws
     and not  of men."   For,  the very  idea that one man may be
     compelled to  hold his  life, or the means of living, or any
     material right  essential to  the enjoyment  of life, at the
     mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country
     where freedom  prevails, as  being the  essence  of  slavery
     itself.
                   [Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
                                                 [emphasis added]
                                                                 
     More recently,  the Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental
importance of US the people as the source of sovereignty, and the
subordinate status  which Congress  occupies in  relation to  the
sovereignty of  the people.   The following language is terse and
right on point:

     In the  United States***,  sovereignty resides in the people
     who act  through the organs established by the Constitution.
     [cites omitted]   The  Congress as  the  instrumentality  of
     sovereignty is  endowed with certain powers to be exerted on
     behalf of  the people  in the manner and with the effect the
     Constitution  ordains.    The  Congress  cannot  invoke  the
     sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus
     declared.

               [Perry vs United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)]
                                                 [emphasis added]
                                                                 
     No discussion  of sovereignty  would be complete, therefore,
without considering  the sovereignty  that  resides  in  US,  the
people.  The Supreme Court has often identified the people as the
source of  sovereignty in  our  republican  form  of  government.
Indeed, the  federal Constitution  guarantees to  each and  every
State in  the Union a "Republican Form" of government, in so many
words:


                        Page 11 - 6 of 18

                                                      Sovereignty


     Section 4.  The United States shall guarantee to every State
     in this  Union a  Republican Form  of Government,  and shall
     protect each of them against Invasion; ....

               [United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]
                                                 [emphasis added]
                                                                 
What exactly  is a "Republican Form" of government?  It is one in
which the  powers of  sovereignty are  vested in  the people  and
exercised by  the people.  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
makes this very clear:


     Republican government.   One  in   which   the   powers   of
     sovereignty are  vested in  the people  and are exercised by
     the people,  either  directly,  or  through  representatives
     chosen by  the people,  to whom  those powers  are specially
     delegated.   In re  Duncan, 139  U.S. 449,  11 S.Ct. 573, 35
     L.Ed. 219;   Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22
     L.Ed. 627.


The Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between the operation
of  governments   in  Europe,  and  government  in  these  United
States*** of America, as follows:


     In Europe,  the executive  is  almost  synonymous  with  the
     sovereign  power   of  a  State;    and  generally  includes
     legislative  and   judicial  authority.    When,  therefore,
     writers speak  of the  sovereign, it  is not  necessarily in
     exclusion of the judiciary;  and it will often be found that
     when the  executive affords  a remedy  for any  wrong, it is
     nothing more  than by an exercise of its judicial authority.
     Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world,
     where it  is too  commonly acquired  by force  or fraud,  or
     both, and  seldom by compact.  In America, however, the case
     is  widely  different.    Our  government  is  founded  upon
     compact.  Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.

                     [Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     The federal Constitution makes a careful distinction between
natural  born  Citizens  and  citizens  of  the  United  States**
(compare 2:1:5  with Section  1 of the so-called 14th Amendment).
One is  an unconditional  Sovereign  by  natural  birth,  who  is
endowed by  the Creator  with certain  unalienable rights;    the
other  has  been  granted  the  revocable  privileges  of  U.S.**
citizenship, endowed by the Congress of the United States**.  One
is a  Citizen, the  other is  a subject.  One is a Sovereign, the
other is  a subordinate.   One is a Citizen of our constitutional
Republic;  the other is a citizen of a legislative democracy (the
federal zone).    Notice  the  superior/subordinate  relationship


                        Page 11 - 7 of 18

                                                The Federal Zone:


between these two statuses.  I am forever indebted to M. J. "Red"
Beckman, co-author  of The  Law That  Never Was with Bill Benson,
for clearly  illustrating the  important difference  between  the
two.   Red Beckman  has delivered many eloquent lectures based on
the profound simplicity of the following table:


          Chain of command and authority in a:
          
          Majority Rule            Constitutional
          Democracy                Republic

          X                        Creator
          Majority                 Individual
          Government               Constitution
          Public Servants          Government
          Case & Statute Law       Public Servants
          Corporations             Statute Law
          Individual               Corporations

          
     In this  illustration, a  democracy ruled  by  the  majority
places the  individual at  the bottom,  and an unknown elite, Mr.
"X" at  the top.   The  majority (or  mob) elects a government to
hire public  "servants" who  write laws primarily for the benefit
of  corporations.     These  corporations  are  either  owned  or
controlled by  Mr. X,  a clique  of the ultra-wealthy who seek to
restore a  two-class "feudal"  society.  They exercise their vast
economic power so as to turn all of America into a "feudal zone".
The rights  of individuals  occupy the  lowest priority  in  this
chain of  command.   Those rights often vanish over time, because
democracies eventually  self-destruct.   The enforcement  of laws
within  this  scheme  is  the  responsibility  of  administrative
tribunals, who specialize in holding individuals to the letter of
all rules  and regulations  of the corporate state, no matter how
arbitrary and  with little  if any  regard for  fundamental human
rights:

     A democracy  that  recognizes  only  manmade  laws  perforce
     obliterates the concept of Liberty as a divine right.

           [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 146]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     In the  constitutional  Republic,  however,  the  rights  of
individuals are  supreme.  Individuals delegate their sovereignty
to a  written contract,  called a  constitution,  which  empowers
government to  hire public  servants to  write laws primarily for
the benefit  of individuals.   The corporations occupy the lowest
priority in this chain of command, since their primary objectives
are to  maximize the  enjoyment  of  individual  rights,  and  to
facilitate the  fulfillment of  individual responsibilities.  The
enforcement of  laws within  this scheme is the responsibility of
sovereign individuals,  who exercise their power in three arenas:


                        Page 11 - 8 of 18

                                                      Sovereignty


the voting  booth, the trial jury, and the grand jury.  Without a
jury verdict of "guilty", for example, no law can be enforced and
no penalty  exacted.   The behavior of public servants is tightly
restrained  by   contractual  terms,  as  found  in  the  written
constitution.   Statutes and  case law  are created  primarily to
limit and define the scope and extent of public servant power.   

     Sovereign individuals  are subject  only to  a  common  law,
whose primary  purposes are  to  protect  and  defend  individual
rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private
person, from  violating the  rights of other individuals.  Within
this scheme, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations,
and the constitutional contract is such a creation.  To quote the
Supreme Court,  "No fiction  can make  a natural  born  subject."
Milvaine vs Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808).  That is to say, no
fiction, be it a corporation, a statute law, or an administrative
regulation, can  mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who
is subject to his own creations.  Author and scholar Lori Jacques
has put it succinctly as follows:


     As each state is sovereign and not a territory of the United
     States**, the  meaning is  clear that state citizens are not
     subject  to  the  legislative  jurisdiction  of  the  United
     States**.     Furthermore,  there   is  not   the  slightest
     intimation in  the Constitution  which created  the  "United
     States" as  a political  entity that  the "United States" is
     sovereign over its creators.

            [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 32]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     Accordingly, if  you choose  to investigate  the matter, you
will find  a very  large body  of legal  literature  which  cites
another fiction,  the so-called  14th Amendment,  from which  the
federal government  presumes to derive general authority to treat
everyone in America as subjects and not as Sovereigns:


     Section 1.   All  persons born  or naturalized in the United
     States**, and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are
     citizens of  the United  States** and  of the  State wherein
     they reside.

         [United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [sic]]
                                                 [emphasis added]

It is  just uncanny how the wording of this so-called "amendment"
closely parallels  the Code  of Federal  Regulations (CFR)  which
promulgate Section  1 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).  Can it
be that this "amendment" had something to do with subjugation, by
way of  taxes and  other means?   Section  1 of  the IRC  is  the
section which imposes income taxes.  The corresponding section of
the CFR defines who is a "citizen" as follows:


                        Page 11 - 9 of 18

                                                The Federal Zone:


     Every person  born or naturalized in the United States** and
     subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

                                                [26 CFR 1.1-1(c)]
                                                [emphasis addded]

Notice the  use of  the term  "its jurisdiction".  This leaves no
doubt that  the "United  States**" is  a singular  entity in this
context.   In other words, it is the federal zone.  Do we dare to
speculate why  the so-called  14th Amendment  was written instead
with the  phrase "subject  to the jurisdiction thereof"?  Is this
another case of deliberate ambiguity?  You be the judge.

     Not only  did this  so-called "amendment"  fail  to  specify
which meaning  of the  term "United States" was being used;  like
the 16th  Amendment, it  also failed to be ratified, this time by
15  of   the  37  States  which  existed  in  1868.    The  House
Congressional  Record   for  June  13,  1967,  contains  all  the
documentation you need to prove that the so-called 14th Amendment
was never  ratified into  law (see  page 15641  et  seq.).    For
example, it  itemizes all States which voted against the proposed
amendment, and  the precise dates when their Legislatures did so.
"I cannot  believe that  any court,  in full  possession  of  its
faculties, could  honestly hold  that the  amendment was properly
approved and  adopted." State  vs Phillips,  540 P.2d.  936,  941
(1975).   The Utah  Supreme Court  has detailed  the shocking and
sordid history  of the 14th Amendment's "adoption" in the case of
Dyett vs Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 272 (1968).

     A great  deal of  written material on the 14th Amendment has
been assembled  on computer  files  by  Richard  McDonald,  whose
mailing address is 585-D Box Canyon Road, Canoga Park, California
Republic (not  "CA").   He requests that ZIP codes not be used on
his incoming  mail.  If you must use a ZIP code when you write to
him, show  it on  a separate  line, preceded by the words "POSTAL
ZONE" and followed by "/TDC" or "without prejudice U.C.C. 1-207".
McDonald has done a mountain of legal research and writing on the
origins  and  effects  of  the  so-called  14th  Amendment.    He
documents how key court decisions like the Slaughter House Cases,
among many  others, all  found that  there is a clear distinction
between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States**
(e.g. see  16 Wall.  36, 74).   A  State Citizen  is a Sovereign,
whereas a  citizen  of  the  United  States**  is  a  subject  of
Congress.

     The case  of U.S.  vs Cruikshank  is famous,  not  only  for
confirming this  distinction between  State Citizens  and  U.S.**
citizens, but  also for  establishing a key precedent in the area
of due process. This precedent underlies the "void for vagueness"
doctrine which  can and should be applied to nullify the IRC.  On
the issue of citizenship, the Cruikshank court ruled as follows:





                       Page 11 - 10 of 18

                                                      Sovereignty


     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 others,
     and each  has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and
     whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect.  The
     same person  may be at the same time a citizen of the United
     States** and  a citizen  of  a  State,  but  his  rights  of
     citizenship under one of these governments will be different
     from those he has under the other.  Slaughter-House Cases

                [United States vs Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

A similar authority is found in the case of K. Tashiro vs Jordan,
decided by  the Supreme  Court of  the State of California almost
fifty years  later.   Notice, in  particular, how  the California
Supreme Court again cites the Slaughter House Cases:

     That there  is a  citizenship of  the United  States** and a
     citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of
     one are not the same as the other is well established by the
     decisions of  the courts of this country.  The leading cases
     upon the  subjects are those decided by the Supreme Court of
     the United  States and  reported in  16 Wall.  36, 21 L. Ed.
     394, and known as the Slaughter House Cases.

                   [K. Tashiro vs Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

This case  was subsequently  appealed on  a writ of certiorari to
the U.S.  Supreme Court,  where it  was affirmed  in the  case of
Jordan vs K. Tashiro, 278 U.S. 123 (1928).

     In the  fundamental law,  the notion  of a  "citizen of  the
United States"  simply did  not exist  before the 14th Amendment;
at best,  this  notion  is  a  fiction  within  a  fiction.    In
discussing the  power of the States to naturalize, the California
State Supreme  Court put  it rather  bluntly when  it ruled  that
there was no such thing as a "citizen of the United States":


     A citizen  of any one of the States of the union, is held to
     be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States,  although
     technically and  abstractly there  is no  such  thing.    To
     conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
     of some  one of  the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
     and inconsistent  with the  proper construction  and  common
     understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
     which must  be deduced  from its  various other  provisions.
     The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
     of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of the respective
     States.
                            [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


                       Page 11 - 11 of 18

                                                The Federal Zone:


This decision has never been overturned!

     What is  the proper construction and common understanding of
the term  "Citizen of  the United States" as used in the original
Constitution, before  the so-called  14th Amendment?   This is an
important question,  because this  status is  a qualification for
the offices  of Senator, Representative and President.  No Person
can be  a Representative  unless he  has been  a Citizen  of  the
United States  for seven  years (1:2:2);   no  Person  can  be  a
Senator unless  he has  been a  Citizen of  the United States for
nine years  (1:3:3);   no Person  can be President unless he is a
natural born  Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States (2:1:5).
If these requirements had been literally obeyed, there could have
been no  elections for  Representatives to  Congress for at least
seven years  after the  adoption of  the Constitution, and no one
would have  been eligible  as a  Senator for nine years after its
adoption.   Author John  S. Wise, in a rare book now available on
Richard  McDonald's   electronic  bulletin  board  system  (BBS),
explains away the problem very simply as follows:

     The language  employed by  the convention  was less  careful
     than that  which had  been used  by Congress  in July of the
     same year,  in framing  the ordinance  for the government of
     the  Northwest   Territory.      Congress   had   made   the
     qualification rest  upon citizenship  of "one  of the United
     States***,"  and   this  is  doubtless  the  intent  of  the
     convention which framed the Constitution, for it cannot have
     meant anything else.
                                  [Studies in Constitutional Law:
                             [A Treatise on American Citizenship]
                    [by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

Thus, the  phrase "Citizen  of the United States" as found in the
original Constitution  is synonymous  with the phrase "Citizen of
one of  the United States***".  This simple explanation will help
cut through  the mountain  of propaganda and deception which have
been foisted on all Americans by government bureaucrats and their
high-paid lawyers.   With  this understanding firmly in place, it
is  very   revealing  to  discover  that  many  reprints  of  the
Constitution now  utilize a  lower-case "c" in the sections which
describe  the   qualifications  for   the  offices   of  Senator,
Representative and  President.   This is definitely wrong, and it
is probably  deliberate, so  as to confuse everyone into equating
Citizens of the United States with citizens of the United States,
courtesy of  the so-called  14th Amendment.   There is a very big
difference between the two statuses.

     Moreover, it  is clear  that one  may  be  a  State  Citizen
without also  being a  "citizen of the United States", whether or
not the 14th Amendment was properly ratified.  In a book to which
this writer  has returned  time and time again, author Alan Stang
faithfully cites the relevant court authorities as follows:



                       Page 11 - 12 of 18

                                                      Sovereignty


     Indeed, just  as one may be a "citizen of the United States"
     and not  a citizen  of a  State;  so one apparently may be a
     citizen of  a State  but not  of the United States.  On July
     21, 1966, the Court of Appeal of Maryland ruled in Crosse v.
     Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431;  a headnote
     in which  tells us:   "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 ...."  At page 434,
     Judge Oppenheimer  cites a  Wisconsin ruling  in  which  the
     court said  this:   "Under our complex system of government,
     there may  be a  citizen of a state, who is not a citizen of
     the United States in the full sense of the term ...."

          [Tax Scam, 1988 edition, pages 138-139, emphasis added]

     
     In one  of  the  brilliant  text  files  on  his  electronic
bulletin  board  system  (BBS),  Richard  McDonald  utilized  his
voluminous research  into the  so-called 14th  Amendment when  he
made the following pleading in opposition to a traffic citation:

     17.   The  Accused  Common-Law  Citizen  [defendant]  hereby
     places all parties and the court on NOTICE, that he is not a
     "citizen of  the United  States**" under  the so-called 14th
     Amendment, a  juristic person or a franchised person who can
     be compelled  to perform  to the  regulatory  Vehicle  Codes
     which are  civil in  nature, and  challenges the In Personam
     jurisdiction of  the Court  with this contrary conclusion of
     law.   This Court is now mandated to seat on the law side of
     its capacity  to hear  evidence of the status of the Accused
     Citizen.
                   [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on McDonald's electronic BBS]
           [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

     You might  be wondering  why someone  would go  to  so  much
trouble to  oppose a  traffic citation.  Why not pay the fine and
get on  with your  life?   The answer  lies, once  again, in  the
fundamental law  of our  land, the  Constitution for  the  United
States of  America.   Sovereigns have  learned  to  assert  their
rights, because  rights belong  to the  belligerent party at law.
The Constitution  is the  last bastion  of the  Common Law in our
country.   Were it not for the Constitution, the Common Law would
have been history a long time ago:

     There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that
     there is  no national common law.  The interpretation of the
     constitution of  the United States is necessarily influenced
     by the  fact that  its provisions are framed in the language
     of the  English common  law, and are to be read in the light
     of its history.

        [United States vs Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 891, 893 (1898)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


                       Page 11 - 13 of 18

                                                The Federal Zone:


     Under the Common Law, we are endowed by our Creator with the
right to  travel.   "Driving", on  the other  hand, is defined in
State Vehicle  Codes to  mean the  act of chauffeuring passengers
for hire.   "Passengers"  are those  who pay  a  "driver"  to  be
chauffeured.   Guests, on the other hand, are those who accompany
travelers without  paying for the transportation.  Driving, under
this definition,  is a  privilege for which a State can require a
license.  Similarly, if you are a citizen of the United States**,
you are  subject to  its jurisdiction, and a State government can
prove that  you are  obligated thereby to obey all administrative
statutes and  regulations to  the  letter  of  the  law.    These
regulations include, of course, the requirement that all subjects
apply and pay for licenses to use the State and federal highways,
even though the highways belong to the people.  The land on which
they were  built, and  the materials  and labor expended in their
construction, were  all paid  for with  taxes obtained  from  the
people.  Provided that you are not engaged in any "privileged" or
regulated activity,  you are  free to  travel anywhere  you  wish
within  the   50  States.    Those  States  are  parties  to  the
Constitution and are therefore bound by all its terms.

     Another one  of your  Common Law  rights is the right to own
property free  and clear of any liens.  ("Unalienable" rights are
rights against which no lien can be established precisely because
they are  un-lien-able.)  You enjoy the right to own your vehicle
outright, without  any lawful  requirement that you "register" it
with  the   State  Department  of  Motor  Vehicles.    The  State
governments violated  your fundamental rights when they concealed
the legal  "interest" which  they obtained  in your  vehicle,  by
making it  appear as if you were required to register the vehicle
when you purchased it, as a condition of purchase. This is fraud.
If you  don't believe  me, then  try to obtain the manufacturer's
statement of  origin (MSO)  the next  time you  buy a  new car or
truck.   The implications  and ramifications  of  driving  around
without a  license, and/or  without registration,  are far beyond
the scope of this book.  Suffice it to say that effective methods
have already been developed to deal with law enforcement officers
and courts, if and when you are pulled over and cited for driving
without a  license or  tags.   Richard McDonald is second to none
when it  comes to  preparing a  successful defense  to the  civil
charges that  might result.   A  Sovereign is  someone who enjoys
fundamental, Common  Law rights,  and owning  property  free  and
clear is one of those fundamental rights.

     If you  have a  DOS-compatible personal computer and a 2400-
baud modem,  Richard McDonald  can provide  you with instructions
for accessing  his electronic bulletin board system (BBS).  There
is a mountain of information, and some of his computer files were
rather large  when he  began his  BBS.  Users were complaining of
long transmission times to "download" text files over phone lines
from his  BBS to their own personal computers.  So, McDonald used
a  fancy  text  "compression"  program  on  all  the  text  files
available on  his BBS.   As  a consequence,  BBS users must first
download a DOS program which "decompresses" the compressed files.


                       Page 11 - 14 of 18

                                                      Sovereignty


Once this  program is  running on your personal computer, you are
then free to download all other text files and to decompress them
at your  end.   For example,  the compressed  file  "14AMREC.ZIP"
contains the  documentation which  proves that the so-called 14th
Amendment was  never ratified.   If  you  have  any  problems  or
questions, Richard  McDonald is  a very patient and generous man.
And please tell him where you read about his BBS.

     As you  peruse through  McDonald's numerous court briefs and
other documents,  you will  encounter many  gems to be remembered
and shared  with your  family, friends  and associates.  His work
has confirmed  an attribute  of sovereignty  that is of paramount
importance.   Sovereignty  is  never  diminished  in  delegation.
Thus,  as   sovereign  individuals,   we  do   not  diminish  our
sovereignty  in  any  way  by  delegating  our  powers  to  State
governments, to  perform services  which are  difficult,  if  not
impossible for  us to  perform as individuals.  Similarly, States
do not  diminish their  sovereignty by  delegating powers  to the
federal government,  via the  Constitution.  As McDonald puts it,
powers delegated do not equate to powers surrendered:

     17.   Under the  Constitutions, "...  we the People" did not
     surrender our  individual sovereignty to either the State or
     Federal Government.   Powers  "delegated" do  not equate  to
     powers surrendered.   This  is a  Republic, not a democracy,
     and the  majority cannot  impose its  will upon the minority
     because the  "LAW" is already set forth.  Any individual can
     do anything  he or  she wishes  to do so long as it does not
     damage,  injure,   or  impair  the  same  Right  of  another
     individual.   This is  where the concept of a corpus delicti
     comes from to prove a "crime" or a civil damage.

           [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald's electronic BBS]
           [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

     Indeed, to  be a  Citizen of the United States*** of America
is to  be one  of the  Sovereign people, "a constituent member of
the sovereignty,  synonymous with  the people" [see 19 How. 404].
According to  the 1870  edition of  Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the
people  are  the  fountain  of  sovereignty.    It  is  extremely
revealing that  there is no definition of "United States" as such
in this dictionary.  However, there is an important discussion of
the  "United   States  of   America",  where  the  delegation  of
sovereignty clearly originates in the people and nowhere else:

     The great  men who  formed it  did not  undertake to solve a
     question that  in its  own nature  is  insoluble.    Between
     equals it  made neither  superior, but trusted to the mutual
     forbearance of both parties.  A larger confidence was placed
     in an  enlightened public  opinion as the final umpire.  The
     people parcelled  out the  rights of sovereignty between the
     states and  the United  States**, and  they have  a  natural
     right to  determine what  was given to one party and what to
     the other. ...


                       Page 11 - 15 of 18

                                                The Federal Zone:


     It is  a maxim  consecrated in  public law as well as common
     sense and  the necessity  of the  case, that  a sovereign is
     answerable for  his acts  only to  his God  and to  his  own
     conscience.

                   [Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, 1870]
                    [in definition of "United States of America"]
                                                 [emphasis added]
                                                                 
     We don't need to reach far back into another century to find
proof that  the people of America are sovereign.  In a Department
of Justice  booklet revised  on  October  12,  1988  (M-76),  the
meaning of American Citizenship was described with these eloquent
and  moving   words  by   the  Commissioner  of  Immigration  and
Naturalization:

                  The Meaning of American Citizenship
             Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization

          Today you have become a citizen of the United States of
     America.   You are  no longer an Englishman, a Frenchman, an
     Italian, a Pole.  Neither are you a hyphenated-American -- a
     Polish-American, an  Italian-American.   You are no longer a
     subject of  a government.   Henceforth,  you are an integral
     part of  this Government  -- a  freeman --  a Citizen of the
     United States of America.

          This citizenship,  which has been solemnly conferred on
     you, is a thing of the spirit -- not of the flesh.  When you
     took the  oath of  allegiance to  the  Constitution  of  the
     United  States   you  claimed  for  yourself  the  God-given
     unalienable rights  which that sacred document sets forth as
     the natural right of all men.
                                                                 
          You have  made sacrifices  to reach  this desired goal.
     We, your  fellow citizens,  realize this,  and the warmth of
     our welcome  to you  is increased proportionately.  However,
     we would tincture it with friendly caution.

          As you  have learned during these years of preparation,
     this great  honor carries  with it  the duty to work for and
     make  secure  this  longed-for  and  eagerly-sought  status.
     Government under our Constitution makes American citizenship
     the highest  privilege and  at the  same time  the  greatest
     responsibility of any citizenship in the world.

          The important  rights that are now yours and the duties
     and  responsibilities   attendant  thereon   are  set  forth
     elsewhere in  this souvenir  booklet.  It is hoped that they
     will serve as a constant reminder that only by continuing to
     study  and   learn  about  your  new  Country,  its  ideals,
     achievements, and  goals, and  by everlastingly  working  at
     your citizenship  can you  enjoy its fruits and assure their
     preservation for generations to follow.


                       Page 11 - 16 of 18

                                                      Sovereignty


          May you  find in  this Nation  the fulfillment  of your
     dreams of  peace and  security, and  may America,  in  turn,
     never find you wanting in your new and proud role of Citizen
     of the United States.

                        [A Welcome to U.S.A. Citizenship, page 3]
                                     [U.S. Department of Justice]
                         [Immigration and Naturalization Service]
                                                 [emphasis added]
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                             #  #  #











































                       Page 11 - 17 of 18

                                                The Federal Zone:


Reader's Notes:























































                       Page 11 - 18 of 18
