Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Freeman Citizens of the US of A...

Natural allegiance as         stated in English Law, "is due from all men born within the king's         dominions immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and         perpetual, which cannot be divested by ANY ACT of their own."         

If this be so, then         wouldn't the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution be         evidence of a violation of the allegiance due to the king by these men         who declared their independence?

Surely it would but for         the fact that America and the freemen were already out of the King's         dominion and domiciled on their own land.  They had already been         manumitted by the Charters of King Charles the I & II.

"The civil law reduces the         unwilling freedman to his original slavery;         but the laws of the Angloes judge once manumitted as ever after         free."  Maxim of Law

These freeholders were not "contending that         our rabble, or all unqualified persons         [non-freemen], shall have the right of voting or not be taxed, but that the freeholders and         electors         [i.e. allodial land owners] whose right accrues to them from the common law, or from         charter, shall not be deprived of         that right."  The Works of Alexander         Hamilton,         edited by Henry Cabot Lodge, N.Y. 1904, I, 172 Ibid, March 31,         1768

As you can see as early as 1768 in America there were         "freemen" called "freeholders" who had the actual possession and         absolute ownership of a parcel of land who were, because of their status         and ownership of land, "electors" who could vote and could NOT BE TAXED         without their consent.

"Freeman" - The possessors of allodial         lands.  See: Liberi, Blacks 3rd & Oxford Dictionary          

Homo Liber.  A free man; a freeman lawfully competent to         act as juror.  An allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a         vassal or feudatory.  Black's 3rd.

A "freeman" is defined as         someone who has a free hold title in land.  

In colonial         America "The ordinary citizen, living on his farm,         owned in         fee-simple,         untroubled by any relics of Feudalism [such as land tenure]         UNTAXED saved by himself, saying         his say to all the world in town meetings, had gained a new self-reliance [i.e.         independence].  Wrestling with his soul and plow on week days, and         the innumerable points of the minister's sermons on Sundays and meeting         days, he was becoming a tough nut for any imperial system to         crack."  History of the U.S.         Vol. I -         James Truslow Adams, page         176  Not so         today.

It was due to the status and estate of "freeman" and being         the possessors of allodial lands and their self-reliance or independence         that these freeholders could lawfully sign the Declaration of         Independence in which they claimed the unwarranted usurpation by the         king of those rights that had accrued to them from the common         law and from the charters of King Charles I & II.   These         men were "freemen" and "freeholders" and no longer a subject of the         king.

These men had worked for the company for a number of years         in order to gain their freedom and a small parcel of land they could         call their own.  The problem was the king was usurping their hard         earned freedom and rights and therefore in dishonor.  These men had         earned the beneficial use of their own land and property by paying for         it with the substances of their own sweat and tears and hardship and no         usurping king was going to go back on his word and make them his         subjects again.  Where are such men today?

One historical         account estimates that around 50,000 Americans joined the British to         fight against those Americans freeholders seeking independence from the         King's abuses of their liberty they had earned by voluntary servitude to         the company for those many years.  These 50,000 are the "rabble"         who would join with the king to fight against the freemen when the         revolution began to which  Alexander Hamilton         referred.

Today "citizenship" in the United States has become a         "political obligation" depending NOT on ownership of land as it once         was, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government, and it binds         the subject citizen to the observance of all laws of his sovereign, not         just the common law.  This class of citizen is not a sovereign but         rather the government is the sovereign and the citizen is a subject         thereof.

What happened to the idea that "People of a state are         entitled to ALL rights which formerly belonged to the king by his         prerogative?"  Lansing v. Smith

And, what about this declaration of the court where it declared:         "In once sense, the term "sovereign" has for its correlative         'subject.'  In this sense, the term can receive NO application; for         it has NO object in the Constitution of the United States.  Under         THAT Constitution there are citizens, but NO subjects."  Chishom v.         Georgia         (1793)

What do we have today?

"The ultimate ownership of         all property is in the State; individual so-called 'ownership' is only         by virtue of Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must         be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."          Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17,         1933

Of course "necessity" knows no law.

What happened in         1933 that turned the world upside down and made the government sovereign         and the people subjects?  

It appears to me that the         republic existed well before the Constitution for the United States and         the problem is that presently there are no freemen and freeholder at         home on their land in the republic.  Everyone is claiming to be or         is presumed to be a 14th amendment federal citizen who is completely         subject to the jurisdiction of the United States federal         government.  Such class of subject persons cannot own land         absolutely.

Federal citizenship.          Rights and         obligations accruing by reason of         being a citizen of the United States.  State or status of being a         citizen of the United States.  A person born or naturalized in the         United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen of         the United States and of the State wherein he resides."  Black's         6th  Also in Black's Fifth edition  

This federal         citizenship was not defined in Black's 4th edition.  Yet some say         that the 14th amendment did not create a new citizenship, but that it         only clarified who was and is born a citizen of the United States.          It certainly made federal citizenship primary and state citizenship         derivative.  Nevertheless, is it not true that both before and         after the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution that 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?  How can this be if every         person is born a citizen of the United States federal government and         subject to its complete and absolute jurisdiction? 

3A Am Jur         1420, Aliens and Citizens, - "A person is born subject to the         jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, IF         his birth occurs in territory over which the         United States         IS sovereign...."

Is the United States sovereign within the         exterior limits of the several states?

What is this "territory"         in the phrase "The United States and all territory subject to the         jurisdiction thereof?"

"We are of opinion         that it means the regional areas -- of land and adjacent waters -- over         which the United States claims and exercises dominion and control as a sovereign         power.  ".... the term is         used in a physical and not a metaphorical sense -- that it refers to         areas or districts having fixity of location and recognized         boundaries."  See United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336, 390, 4L         Ed. 404

"It is now settled in the         United States and recognized elsewhere that the territory subject to ITS         jurisdiction includes land areas under its dominion and         control, the ports, harbors, bays         and other enclose arms of the sea along its coast and a marginal belt of         the sea extending from the coast line outward a marine league, or three         geographic miles." Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch 187, 234, 2 L. Ed.         249  This we hold is the territory which the amendment designates         as its field of operation; and the designation is not of a part of this         territory but of 'all' of it."  262 US 100 Cunard Co v.         Mellon

Again, does the United States have sovereign dominion and         control over the "physical" land areas within the exterior limits of the         several states that has not been ceded to         it?

From: "Don S,"        
To: Cit of USA          
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:08         AM
Subject: Re:         [citizensoftheUSofA] Re: 1783 treaty of paris........... NW Ordinance,         Con-stituion, Territorial Govt, U.S. vs U.S.A.

But, we must understand the context and         the lawful meaning of that term.

Yes, they were independent states, but         formed into a confederation

that acted as an independent body from the         states, acting for them

all in concert.

The Second Continental Congress, acted as         a singular body for all the states.

No comments:

Post a Comment