United States District Court For The Northern District Of California 2 Instruction: Fill & Download for Free

I will assume you are an American and you think you have Rights as mentioned in the federal constitution.The vast majority of Americans receive their understanding of the federal Constitution from the government-controlled education system. The form of instruction is from either books written by Constitutional Scholars or teachers taught by Constitutional Scholars.The "Constitutional Scholar", including lawyers who make up the majority of people in Congres and State legislatures, generally gets the title after being instructed by other constitutional scholars who have also been taught, or perhaps indoctrinated would be a better word, by previous ones. Since most of this instruction is in an academic environment, one must adhere to the teachings in order to pass and be awarded with basically a "Constitutional Scholar" Certificate or become a member of the Bar.One problem with this is any falsehoods, accidental and intentional, entering the teachings can be perpetrated as facts for future scholars. These "new" facts are also taught to the general population to encourage their acceptance of false information.Another problem is that proper English word usage and meanings along with English concepts of implicit vs explicit, context defining meaning of words with multiple definitions, etc., are ignored if they conflict with the scholars' teachings.United states of confusionLet’s look at how words are used and understood. You must train yourself to not presume any meanings to words or to assume limits where they are not specified.When you see “United States” in a sentence or law you know that it is referring to the country, right? Well maybe not.The U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) stated;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.So the term “United States” may be (among others):1. A nation among other nations, as when the United States is represented at the U.N. A singular entity.2. The territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends. Since this is also a singular entity it must mean the areas over which the Federal government has jurisdiction.3. The Several States united by the Constitution. A plural term. The term Several States is usually used to denote the 50 separate States in law.The first definition is easily understood; the second and third are not. Let’s look at the second definition in the U.S. Constitution. Note that these definitions are mutually exclusive to one another.13th AmendmentSECTION 1.Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Note the "their jurisdiction", it is plural and means the several States, but not the federal government and its possessions and territories. (In English, and Law, explicitly naming entities implicitly excludes entities not named. So, since this Amendment explicitly and exclusively names the several States it excludes the federal government from its provisions against involuntary servitude.)The former Confederate States, after being welcomed back into the Union and after voting to ratify the 13th Amendment, were refused their right to Suffrage after refusing to ratify the 14th. The Northern Congressmen refused to seat those former Confederate Congressmen. They then passed the Reconstruction Acts that called for the military occupation of those States; the overthrow of the duly-elected officials and the appointment of replacements by Congress. These appointed officials then voted to ratify the amendment. Still think its constitutional?Why did those States balk at the 14th Amendment? Among other things, this alleged amendment created a new citizen, all of us now, that is a subject of the federal government. These new citizens have no Rights, only immunities and privileges granted by the federal government. Some of these mimic those enumerated in the Bill of Rights and create the impression that you have Rights protected by the Constitution. These federal citizens, actually chattel, are deemed to be citizens of the Seat of Government, DC, and as such subject to any and all whims of the federal government.14th AmendmentSection 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Note the "THE jurisdiction thereof", it is singular and denotes the federal government (in this case also the District of Columbia), NOT the several States since it would have read "their jurisdiction", as in the 13th, or "the jurisdictions". Until this unconstitutional amendment was declared ratified, the only entities that could Naturalize Citizens were the several States, NOT the federal Government.The fourteenth amendment created citizenship of the federal government. This status is a privilege granted by the government."Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP."Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)"We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States DO NOT NECESSARILLY INCLUDE all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment..."Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)And from the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873"The first clause of the fourteenth article was PRIMARILLY intended to confer citizenship on the Negro race, and secondly to give definitions of citizenship of the United States, and citizenship of the States, and it recognizes the distinction between citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States by those definitions."Much more can be understood about why this Amendment had to be passed. It created a new class of citizen, one subject to the federal government and not the several States. As such, today all Americans are deemed to be14th Amendment citizens, not part of We the People.The writers of the Constitution and it's Amendments and subsequent laws are quite knowledgeable about the English language and know what they write.These two amendments, as written, formed the foundation of the destruction of the Republic and the conversion of the once free We the People into chattel of the federal governmentThen came the unlawfully ratified 15th, 16th Amendments and the unconstitutional 17th Amendment. These sealed the doom of We the People.15th, which forbade the several States from disallowing non-state, these aforementioned federal citizens, from voting. Having non-state citizens vote in State elections is the same as having non-citizens, foreigners, vote today. FYI, non-state citizen, those newly created US, federal, citizens, were considered aliens according to the original California Code. According to the Code, if you were not a Citizen of California or one of the other several States, you were an alien. The District of Columbia, the Seat of the federal government, is not one of the several States. These 14th Amendment citizens, which all current Americans are considered to be, are deemed, in law, to be citizens of DC. As such alien to the several States and taxable in all areas of life.Note that not all citizens of the United States were represented in Congress or were allowed to vote for President. Only Citizens of the several States had the Right to elect representatives and the President. It took an Amendment to grant this to Americans living in Washington DC.16th, which was not properly ratified because the some states modified the wording which should have mandated that it be returned to Congress and resubmitted. When it became clear that the amendment was in danger of failing, Secrarary of State Alexander Knox simply declared it ratified.17th, which is itself unconstitutional since it violates the very clause that sets out the amendment process. Mainly that no state shall be denied its Right of Suffrage. All the States voting "No" were denied its Right. This Right is specifically excluded from the standard amendment process but was needed to remove the check held by the several States over the federal government by tge Senate.Since Congress has the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District…”; the courts have held that Congress can do pretty much whatever it wants in the district. Remember, “…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States (Congress) do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Also note that citizens of Congress only have “privileges and immunities of citizens” and not “rights protected by the first eight amendments”.That may be a concern for folks living in Washington D.C., but what does it have to do with correcting the peoples’ concerns about our runaway government?Plenty. One of the acts Congress passed is the Buck Act. The following is from “The Buck Act” by Richard McDonald. I strongly recommend you read the entire article.Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 in the U.S. Constitution. So, in 1940, Congress passed the "Buck Act". In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a "Federal area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939". The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a "Federal area" overlay.4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States.Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a "Federal area"? A "Federal area" is any area designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid. Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.).This "Federal area" attaches to anyone who has a Social Security Number or any personal contact with the federal or state governments. Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating "Federal areas" within the boundaries of the states under the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia, Congress] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as an "individual entity". Under the "Buck Act", the federal government has created a "Federal area" within the boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in this "Federal area"…The "reinterpretations" by the SCOTUS are simply officially giving the feds cover to do what these aforementioned alleged amendments set up through the republic's demise.

The SCOTUS has stated that the validity of amendments to the federal constitution are political issues and the Court would not get involved. So the remedy for challenging an amendment is to rely on the very entities that passed and ratified them. Yep, that'll work. It also allows those justices to sit back knowing an amendment was improperly ratified or simply unconstitutional itself. This does not prevent those same justices from upholding laws implimenting unlawful amendments, fining and incarcerating Americans.The undeclared war waged by the federal government during the 1860’s against the lawfully seceeded States resulted in the overthrow of the American Republic. The traitors in Congress then passed, using their own appointed representatives from the conquered States, to declare two deceptive amendments ratified shortly after the war, the 14th and 15th. In the next decades two more deceptions were ratified, one to condolidate their power, 17th and one to gain acceptance by the public by covering up the real authority for the action, 16th.Thanks to our government-controlled education system, the vast majority of Americans don't know how our Republic is set up. They parrot what they have been taught, but never see that it is wrong. The Republic set up by the Founders was mortally wounded in the 1860's and died in the 1930's. I think most people, if they did realize it, wouldn't care and would argue for their continued enslavement.In order to understand why we are experiencing so many attacks on our freedoms we must have an understanding of language. We must know what words mean in the context being used.The vast majority of Americans receive their understanding of the federal Constitution from the government-controlled education system. The form of instruction is from either books written by Constitutional Scholars or teachers taught by Constitutional Scholars.The "Constitutional Scholar", including lawyers who make up the majority of people in Congress and State legislatures, generally gets the title after being instructed by other constitutional scholars who have also been taught, or perhaps indoctrinated would be a better word, by previous ones. Since most of this instruction is in an academic environment, one must adhere to the teachings in order to pass and be awarded with basically a "Constitutional Scholar" Certificate or become a member of the Bar.One problem with this is any falsehoods, accidental and intentional, entering the teachings can be perpetrated as facts for future scholars. These "new" facts are also taught to the general population to encourage their acceptance of false information.Another problem is that proper English word usage and meanings along with English concepts of implicit vs explicit, context defining meaning of words with multiple definitions, etc., are ignored if they conflict with the scholars' teachings.United states of confusionLet’s look at how words are used and understood. You must train yourself to not presume any meanings to words or to assume limits where they are not specified.When you see “United States” in a sentence or law you know that it is referring to the country, right? Well maybe not.The U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) stated;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.So the term “United States” may be (among others):1. A nation among other nations, as when the United States is represented at the U.N. A singular entity.2. The territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends. Since this is also a singular entity it must mean the areas over which the Federal government has jurisdiction.3. The Several States united by the Constitution. A plural term. The term Several States is usually used to denote the 50 separate States in law.The first definition is easily understood; the second and third are not. Let’s look at the second definition in the U.S. Constitution. Note that these definitions are mutually exclusive to one another.13th AmendmentSECTION 1.Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Note the "their jurisdiction", it is plural and means the several States, but not the federal government and its possessions and territories. (In English, and Law, explicitly naming entities implicitly excludes entities not named. So, since this Amendment explicitly and exclusively names the several States it excludes the federal government from its provisions against involuntary servitude.)The former Confederate States, after being welcomed back into the Union and after voting to ratify the 13th Amendment, were refused their right to Suffrage after refusing to ratify the 14th. The Northern Congressmen refused to seat those former Confederate Congressmen. They then passed the Reconstruction Acts that called for the military occupation of those States; the overthrow of the duly-elected officials and the appointment of replacements by Congress. These appointed officials then voted to ratify the amendment. Still think its constitutional?Why did those States balk at the 14th Amendment? Among other things, this alleged amendment created a new citizen, all of us now, that is a subject of the federal government. These new citizens have no Rights, only immunities and privileges granted by the federal government. Some of these mimic those enumerated in the Bill of Rights and create the impression that you have Rights protected by the Constitution. These federal citizens, actually chattel, are deemed to be citizens of the Seat of Government, DC, and as such subject to any and all whims of the federal government.14th AmendmentSection 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Note the "THE jurisdiction thereof", it is singular and denotes the federal government (in this case also the District of Columbia), NOT the several States since it would have read "their jurisdiction", as in the 13th, or "the jurisdictions". Until this unconstitutional amendment was declared ratified, the only entities that could Naturalize Citizens were the several States, NOT the federal Government.The fourteenth amendment created citizenship of the federal government. This status is a privilege granted by the government."Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP."Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)"We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States DO NOT NECESSARILLY INCLUDE all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment..."Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)And from the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873"The first clause of the fourteenth article was PRIMARILLY intended to confer citizenship on the Negro race, and secondly to give definitions of citizenship of the United States, and citizenship of the States, and it recognizes the distinction between citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States by those definitions."Much more can be understood about why this Amendment had to be passed. It created a new class of citizen, one subject to the federal government and not the several States. As such, today all Americans are deemed to be14th Amendment citizens, not part of We the People.The writers of the Constitution and it's Amendments and subsequent laws are quite knowledgeable about the English language and know what they write.These two amendments, as written, formed the foundation of the destruction of the Republic and the conversion of the once free We the People into chattel of the federal governmentThen came the unlawfully ratified 15th, 16th Amendments and the unconstitutional 17th Amendment. These sealed the doom of We the People.15th, which forbade the several States from disallowing non-state, these aforementioned federal citizens, from voting. Having non-state citizens vote in State elections is the same as having non-citizens, foreigners, vote today. FYI, non-state citizen, those newly created US, federal, citizens, were considered aliens according to the original California Code. According to the Code, if you were not a Citizen of California or one of the other several States, you were an alien. The District of Columbia, the Seat of the federal government, is not one of the several States. These 14th Amendment citizens, which all current Americans are considered to be, are deemed, in law, to be citizens of DC. As such alien to the several States and taxable in all areas of life.Note that not all citizens of the United States were represented in Congress or were allowed to vote for President. Only Citizens of the several States had the Right to elect representatives and the President. It took an Amendment to grant this to Americans living in Washington DC.16th, which was not properly ratified because the some states modified the wording which should have mandated that it be returned to Congress and resubmitted. When it became clear that the amendment was in danger of failing, Secrarary of State Alexander Knox simply declared it ratified.17th, which is itself unconstitutional since it violates the very clause that sets out the amendment process. Mainly that no state shall be denied its Right of Suffrage. All the States voting "No" were denied its Right. This Right is specifically excluded from the standard amendment process but was needed to remove the check held by the several States over the federal government by tge Senate.Since Congress has the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District…”; the courts have held that Congress can do pretty much whatever it wants in the district. Remember, “…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States (Congress) do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Also note that citizens of Congress only have “privileges and immunities of citizens” and not “rights protected by the first eight amendments”.That may be a concern for folks living in Washington D.C., but what does it have to do with correcting the peoples’ concerns about our runaway government?Plenty. One of the acts Congress passed is the Buck Act. The following is from “The Buck Act” by Richard McDonald. I strongly recommend you read the entire article.Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 in the U.S. Constitution. So, in 1940, Congress passed the "Buck Act". In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a "Federal area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939". The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a "Federal area" overlay.4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States.Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a "Federal area"? A "Federal area" is any area designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid. Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.).This "Federal area" attaches to anyone who has a Social Security Number or any personal contact with the federal or state governments. Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating "Federal areas" within the boundaries of the states under the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia, Congress] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as an "individual entity". Under the "Buck Act", the federal government has created a "Federal area" within the boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in this "Federal area"…The "reinterpretations" by the SCOTUS are simply officially giving the feds cover to do what these aforementioned alleged amendments set up through the republic's demise.

To those who follow me I am probably known for long responses to seemingly simple questions. This will not be an exception."Could a state force citizens to house (or quarter) national guard or law enforcement?"The simple answer is "Yes".The more complex answer takes longer. Relax.The basics:"Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate them” Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 ALR 3rd 974 and 59 other ALR treatises .“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right can not be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional Rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 262.“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 373 U.S. 262.“If you've relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346.The SCOTUS has stated that the Bill of Rights is enforcable within the several States through the 14th Amendment. This is a key statement.Let's examine your SUPPOSED Rights.Amendment 1:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.""....the right of the people peaceably to assemble...."Since you now often must get permission and pay for a permit to peaceably assemble to protest, there are only two reasons. Either the government is violating Amendment 1 or you are not part of the entity known as "the people".Amendment 3:"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."Law enforcement are not considered soldiers so they are not subject to this restriction.Are we now "in time of peace"? We are at war in several countries and have you not heard of the WAR on drugs, WAR on poverty, WAR on crime?Note the "time of war" and "in a manner to be prescribed by law".There are laws and Executive Orders that can be used now to quarter soldiers in your home.Amendment 5:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.""...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..."So, how do you get a warrant having only an anonymous tip? An anonymous tip is probable cause? Who then gives the affidavit sworn to "by Oath or affirmation.?Amendment 5 continued:"....nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;..."People are routinely found not guilty in criminal court only to be found guilty in a civil court. If you are innocent of an act, how can you beheld financially liable?Sometimes people are charged in both state and federal courts for the same act. The courts have ruled that this is not double jeopardy. Do you agree?People now can be charged with several crimes for the same act. A person is charged with killing someone. That person can be charged with 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. I guess it’s not double jeopardy if you do it up front.Amendment 5 continued still:"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,..."How to explain mandatory breath analyzer tests at traffic stops and the forceable taking of samples for DNA tests?The first is because driving, we are told, is a privilege not Right.The SCOTUS has stated that part of Liberty is the Right to Travel."The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579."The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.There are many other cites but these two state it clearly. Note the word "citizen". What citizen? The same citizen refered to as We the People in the Preamble of the federal Constitution. So, if you are part of We the People, you do not need a license. Another way to put it is, if you need a license, you are not part of We the People.Amendment 5 still:"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."If your property can be siezed under Civil Forfeiture and you must prove it was not involved in a crime, youbare not one of We the People.Amendment 5 last time:"....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."In its 5-4 decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court changed the law so that any government entity can take your property and give it to another for virtually any reason at all. It can be to improve the “looks” of the area; increase the tax base; move more businesses into an area; not just for “Public” use as stated in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. ConstitutionSome people complain that this decision amended the federal Constitution but did it? No, it was simply stating, in a roundabout way, that since you are not one of We the People, you own nothing.Now for reasons the aforermetioned statements are true.The vast majority of Americans receive their understanding American history and of the federal Constitution from the government-controlled education system. The form of instruction is from either books written by Constitutional Scholars or teachers taught by Constitutional Scholars.The "Constitutional Scholar" (or lawyers) generally gets the title after being instructed by other constitutional scholars (or lawyers) who have also been taught, or perhaps indoctrinated would be a better word, by previous ones. Since most of this instruction is in an academic environment, one must adhere to the teachings in order to pass and be awarded with basically a "Constitutional Scholar" Certificate (or membership to the Bar).One problem with this is any falsehoods, accidental and intentional, entering the teachings can be perpetrated as facts for future scholars. These "new" facts are also taught to the general population to encourage their acceptance of false information.Another problem is that proper English word usage and meanings along with English concepts of implicit vs explicit, context defining meaning of words with multiple definitions, etc., are ignored if they conflict with the scholars' teachings.The Founders and those writing the amendments, not to mention the US Codes, CFRs and the laws derived from them, were well versed in the English language. What was written was written exactly as they meant it. If they used singular words, they meant a singular subject, if plural words then a plural subject.The facts are that the several States' constitutions protected their Citizens at least as well as the federal one; in most cases better. The federal constitution was designed to lay out specific responsibilities and authorities delegated to the federal government by the several States for matters external to them and among the several States but not matters within them.This provision should be modified due to abuse.Article 1, Section 5,“…..Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”These “rules” include: exempting themselves from their own bills; setting their own salaries and retirement benefits; setting up secret funds to pay for their crimes/embarassments, like prostitutes.This provision should be made mandatory.Article 1, Section 8,“…To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…”This is taken as a suggestion, which us why we have no State Militias, just federal troops.When the Founding Fathers gathered at the Constitutional Convention, they did not show up, write the Constitution and leave the next day. It took several months because they disagreed on just about everything. Not all of them wanted a republic; some wanted: a true democracy; a monarchy, an oligarchy where the “rich and learned” would rule over those who were poor and/or uneducated (for their (our?) own good of course). The resulting document was a compromise.One compromise was allowing slavery. It was done to get all the States to stay in the Union. Slavery was put on the back burner but not before a clause was approved that counted the slave population at only three fifths of their actual number. This provision has been cited as proof of the racism of the Founding Fathers but it was to lessen the slave States representation in the House of Representatives and thus their power.Those in Congress who were against a republic were more enamored with power than actually adhering to the restraints imposed by the federal Constitution, so they placed various restrictions on Southern goods which ended with those States seceeding, lawfully, from the Union. Why was the war necessary?13th AmendmentSECTION 1.Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Note the "their jurisdiction", it is plural and means the several States, but not the federal government or it's possessions and territories. (In English, and Law, explicitly naming entities implicitly excludes entities not named. So, since this Amendment explicitly and exclusively names the several States it excludes the federal government from its provisions against involuntary servitude.)The former Confederate States, after being welcomed back into the Union and after voting to ratify the 13th Amendment, were refused their right to Suffrage after refusing to ratify the 14th. The Northern Congressmen refused to seat those former Confederate Congressmen. They then passed the Reconstruction Acts that called for the military occupation of those States; the overthrow of the duly-elected officials and the appointment of replacements by Congress. These appointed officials then voted to ratify the amendment. Still think its constitutional?Why did those States balk at the 14th Amendment? Among other things, this alleged amendment created a new citizen, all of us now, that is a subject of the federal government. These new citizens have no Rights, only immunities and privileges granted by the federal government. Some of these mimic those enumerated in the Bill of Rights and create the impression that you have Rights protected by the Constitution. These federal citizens, actually chattel, are deemed to be citizens of the Seat of Government, DC, and as such subject to any and all whims of the federal government.Since the 14th Amendment was unlawfully and unconstitutionally declared ratified, why was it important to those who instigated the War Between the States to write it? You must step outside your government-controlled education. Despite the teaching that the Founders were generally supportive of the new concept that All political authority was held by We the People, quite a few were opposed to a Constitutional Republic. Some wanted a monarchy, some a pure democracy, others an oligarchy, with them and their heirs as leaders.They could see that slavery was going to slowly be fazed out. The Industrial innovations would reduce, if not eliminate, the need for slaves so the then corrupt officials had to create a situation that would allow them to take control of the nation.Let's look at the alleged Amendment.Section 1:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."The creation of a new class of citizen wholly subject to the federal government."Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP."Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)"We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States DO NOT NECESSARILLY INCLUDE all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment..."Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)"..... and of the State wherein they reside....."This is interesting because a State Citizen is by definition a Citizen of their respective State but since a federal citizen is, legally, a citizen of the District of Columbia which is not one of the several States, they would have been considered alien to them. That means they would be ineligible to vote within one of them.The original California Code stated that a person was either a Citizen of California, one of the other several States OR you were an alien."No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."This portion, since federal citizens had little State Constitutional protections, forces a State to respect the privileges and Immunities GRANTED to them by the federal government. Note that the term "Rights" is not here.Section 2:"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."Note the lawfully designated "several States". This changes the apportionment to "persons" which includes the mentioned alien federal citizen. It has, currently, been construed to include illegal aliens."But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabit￾ants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and Citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.This reduces the basis for representation by excluding persons whose right to vote has been suspended. But not the exception to the reduction for "participation in rebellion". This was aimed at those former members of the Confederacy who would be denied their Right to vote. While white males, a considerable number that would affect representation, were denied that Right by the unlawful Reconstruction Acts, those former Confederate States soon to be APPOINTED reps would not be diminished allowing the traitorous Congress to further enslave the former We the People.Section 3:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Con￾gress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any offi ce, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereofWhile sounding reasonable, note the "...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,....".The States making up the Confederate States of America LAWFULLY SECEDED from the Union. Hence, no rebellion or insurrection. But it does deflect the real reason for the Amendment.".... But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability...."This alleged Amendment then allows the Congress to have those it wants to be in Congress and the States' legislatures regardless of crimes. Sound familiar?Section 4:The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.So this prohibits anyone, including you, from questioning the now astronomical debt. Nice!This alleged Amendment truly started the conversion of the free united States of America into a Feudal Democracy where government controls virtually every aspect of life in America.The 15th Amendment further obscured the federal takeover of the Republic by suppossedly preventing the several States from denying freed slaves from voting but, actually, preventing the several States from denying the new alien federal citizen from voting in State elections.Remember that the original California Code stated that a person was either a Citizen of California, one of the other several States OR you were an alien. 14th Amendment citizens of the United States are deemed to be citizens of the District of Columbia, that being the Seat of the federal government, residing in one of the several States. DC is not one of the several States, hence its citizens could be denied voting in a State without the 15th.Of course, the fact of the military takeover of the Southern States and the appointment of those States' representatives in both State and federal offices, allowed the traitorous Congress to control what information the people received for years, safely indocrinated into accepting their eventual enslavenent. The 16th was not properly ratified because some states modified the wording before voting. This should have mandated that it be returned to Congress, the changes debated and incorporated or not, and then resubmitted. This amendment was unlawfully declared ratified by Secretary of State Alexander Knox.This is claimed to allow the federal government to tax everybody but it is more insidious. The feds already had that authority under Article 1 Section 8 through the alleged 14th Amendment. The 16th amendment was to divert the people's attention away from the actuality of the fact that they, we, own nothing; all our property is owned and taxable by the feds.That is why the SCOTUS ruled that the government can take your property for any reason and give it to anyone else despite the clear wording of the Constitution specifying public use.The 17th Amendment violates the very Article setting up the amendment process."...no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."The amendment specifically exempts every single one of the several States Right to Suffrage from the requirement the when, “…two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; …..”In order for the 17th to conform to Article 5, every one of the several States would have to have given its consent for the amendment to be constitutionally ratified. Some have stated that the amendment just changed the process for Senators since the States still had equal Suffrage with thd other States. This was not a violation of process; it was a violation of the Constitution.One must understand why the legislative branch of the federal government has two parts. The House of Representatives represents the people. All spending bills must originate in the House because only people pay taxes and the people should control it. The Senate is tasked with giving its consent to federal officers, ambassadors, justices and treaties. Since the actions of these, especially treaties, are binding on the several States, the several States ensured that they would be a check on federal power by controlling their Senators.The truth here is that by changing the mechanism for selecting Senators, this amendment changed the control and focus of the Senate. It resulted in the several States no longer having representation in Congress. Senators are no longer answerable to their respective State's Legislatures but to the people of these States. Senators now campaign to influence people with the same promises of an endless free lunch. There is no consideration of how their plans will affect the States.To those who will declare that the several States still have "equal Suffrage in the Senate”; similar occurances are now happening in several States. They are passing legislation that will have the State's Electors cast their votes for whomever wins the popular vote for President regardless of who receives the majority of that State's popular vote. Will the same argument be used here to quiet dissent? After all, only the process of selecting Electors changed, you still have the right to vote, right?Why is this important? Some seemingly innocuous provisions and terms were used whose meanings at the time were understood and so not well defined in the document.Article 1, Section 6:"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States."With no outside, that is Citizen, oversight, we now have a Congress entitled to lavish expense allowances, lifetime pensions for serving a single term, a secret slush fund to pay for sexual harrassment charges.At least one provision was a seed that if properly watered and fertilized could take root and eventually destroy the country. It is found in Article 1, Section 8., "...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States....".Since Congress has the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District…”; the courts have held that Congress can do pretty much whatever it wants in the district. Remember, “…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States (Congress) do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Also note that citizens of Congress only have “privileges and immunities of citizens” and not “rights protected by the first eight amendments”.Congress wears two hats and operates in two capacities or jurisdictions simultaneously, each of which covers a different and mutually exclusive geographical area:1. As the municipal government for the District of Columbia and all U.S. territories and possessions. All “acts of Congress” or federal statutes passed in this capacity are referred to as “private international law”. This political community is called the “National Government” and it is described in the municipal statutory law for federal territory.2. As the general government for the states of the Union. All “acts of Congress” or federal statutes passed in this capacity are called “public international law”. This political community is called the “Federal Government" and it is described in the Constitution.Each of the two capacities above has different types of “citizens” within it and each is a unique and separate “body politic”. Nearly all laws that Congress writes pertain to the first jurisdiction above only.“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”(Cohens v. Virginia393H, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821))Most Americans accept the current idea that ALL federal laws are binding on all the several States and their Citizens. But this is only true as we are subjects of the federal government due to the American Republic being conquered. The Republic, as described in the federal constitution, should consist of a federal government and, currently, fifty free States. The original Citizens of the several States were only subject to their State's laws and only mildly affected by federal laws. Those living in the District of Columbia, territories and possessions of the federal government were subject to all municipal laws of Congress.Now, however, due to the alleged 14th Amendment, all Americans are deemed to be subject to the municipal laws with the States, through the Buck Act, we live in federal territories NOT any of the free several States.The following is from “The Buck Act” by Richard McDonald. I strongly recommend you read the entire article.Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 in the U.S. Constitution. So, in 1940, Congress passed the "Buck Act". In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a "Federal area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939". The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a "Federal area" overlay.4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States.Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a "Federal area"? A "Federal area" is any area designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid. Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.).This "Federal area" attaches to anyone who has a Social Security Number or any personal contact with the federal or state governments. Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating "Federal areas" within the boundaries of the states under the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia, Congress] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as an "individual entity". Under the "Buck Act", the federal government has created a "Federal area" within the boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in this "Federal area"…Most of the Founders would be appalled at what has happened to the Republic for which they pledged their sacred honor, fought and died. Some would be happy with the current oligarchy we have where our presiding rulers lord over the domain from Washington DC with lesser nobles at state and local levels. Their subjects, all current Americans, are given the impression of being able to elect people who represent themselves but are simply choosing from a cast of preselected clones.This is the reality today.