State Of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decide: Fill & Download for Free

I have written about this before, but here is my opinion. The 14th Amendment did nationalize not only civil rights but all the citizenry. As with most of my comments, it is long in order to present Court statements to back up those comments.I am not a fan of the 14th Amendment; I think it is the cornerstone of the elitists that did not want a Republic where all political power is held by the people and was used to destroy the American Republic.First, here is an excerpt that shows the current view held by lawyers and taught to those becoming lawyers. This is important because lawyers make up the majority of those in Congresd and those who actually write the laws, Codes, and Amendments. Remember that they know the English language and its vagaries. The laws, Codes and Amendments are precise and state exactly what was intended.The 14th Amendment: Cornerstone of civil rightsABA Law Student Division •MAY 01, 2017(Part of the text)The theme for Law Day 2017 – The 14th Amendment: Transforming American Democracy – provides the opportunity to explore the many ways that the Fourteenth Amendment has reshaped American law and society.Through its citizenship, due process, and equal protection clauses, this transformative amendment advances the rights of all Americans. It also plays a pivotal role in extending the reach of the Bill of Rights to the states.Ratified during Reconstruction a century and a half ago, the Fourteenth Amendment serves as the cornerstone of landmark civil rights legislation, the foundation for numerous federal court decisions protecting fundamental rights, and a source of inspiration for all those who advocate for equal justice under law.ABA President Linda Klein has this message for Law Day 2017:Linda KleinIn the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln promised “a new birth of freedom.” Just three years after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, guaranteeing former slaves citizenship and all its privileges.The 2017 Law Day theme “The Fourteenth Amendment: Transforming American Democracy” commemorates the important contribution this historic constitutional change made to our understanding of what it means to be an American and how closely liberty is tied to equality and justice.In a nation that had only recently abolished slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment for the first time constitutionally defined United States citizenship. It specifically prohibited states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; it also required that states afford any person within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. The impact of the extension of these basic guarantees cannot be overstated.In the century and a half that has elapsed since its ratification, the Fourteenth Amendment has continued to transform American law and society in several significant ways:It provided the mechanism for the key guarantees of the Bill of Rights, including free speech, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to a trial by jury, to become enforceable against the states, and not just against the federal government;Its due process clause provided the authority for court recognition of certain fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy; andIts equal protection clause established the framework for challenging laws and state-sanctioned practices that create or perpetuate inequality................Two important points made are, "Ratified during Reconstruction....". And "...extending the reach of the Bill of Rights to the states".My thoughts:Americans are taught that the Founders created the federal Constitution. This is somewhat misleading because not all of them wanted a Republic where all political power rested in the People. Some wanted a monarchy; some a pure democracy; some an oligarchy. Those against a republic, in my opinion, worked to have certain seemingly innocuous but well-understood phrases inserted into the Constitution with the idea of using them at a later date to undermine and eventually destroy the American Republic.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" (and lawyers) 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 admitted 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.Americans have accepted seemingly unconstitutional actions by the government because unelected judges (lawyers) have amended the Constitution by simply issuing a ruling that said those actions were OK. The SCOTUS has even stated that the Congress, the body elected by the American voters, can not define words used in the federal Constitution because that would amount to amending it. But unelected judges can???When people testify in a courtroom, they swear to: tell the truth, tell the whole truth, and tell nothing but the truth. What is stated must be the truth, the truth with nothing withheld, and the truth with nothing added to it. This is a foundation of our judicial system. However please note that the judges, lawyers and prosecutors do not swear to this. While this does not mean necessarily that all they say are lies, it does mean that they do not have to tell the whole truth about how their ruling is decided. They can bend or omit part of the truth to make a point.One example is the Kelo decision. With the stroke of a pen the SCOTUS drastically amended the Constitution by the simple method of "redefining" the words "Public use" from the longstanding understanding to mean, essentially, anything the government deems a benefit. A company wants certain properties to build a mall? No problem since that will bring in more tax revenue and that's a good public use. Dozens of citizens who have lived there for years displaced? Well, sacrifices must be made.Another seemingly warranted provision that is at the core of the republic's destruction is found in Article 1, Section 8. This gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. Why was that a danger?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, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and all other possessions and territories of the federal government3. The Several States united by the Constitution. A plural term. The term Several States is usually used to denote the, currently, 50 separate States in law.The first definition is easily understood; the second and third are not. Let’s look at the third 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 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.)So the 13th Amendment states explicitly that: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the SEVERAL STATES, or any place subject to their jurisdictionANDImplicitly states that: Either slavery or involuntary servitude shall exist within the Federal Government, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The punishment exception doesn’t apply here since it is negated by the implicit allowance of involuntary servitude.I have gotten a lot of flak because of this from people indignant over the clear meaning of this amendment. One thing you must remember here is just because the law allows something doesn’t mean it has to either state it or refute it. It would be better to look at our lives and see if we are truly free or not.On to the alleged 14th Amendment and the second definition of United States. The former Confederate States, after being welcomed back into the Union and after voting to ratify the 13th Amendment, balked at the intent of the proposed 14th Amendment. Only Citizens of the several States, known as We the People, could vote for President and had representation in Congress. This amendment's purpose was to create a new class of citizen, one not of the several States but a subject of the federal government. All federal territories and possessions were, and are, under the exclusive control of Congress through Article 1, Section 8 of the federal constitution.In retaliation for their refusal to cede to the federal government a Right that was always held exclusively by the several States, the Northern Congressmen refused to seat those former Confederate Congressmen and then passed the Reconstruction Acts that called for the military occupation of those States (except Tennessee who voted for the 14th), the overthrow of the duly-elected officials and the appointment of replacements by Congress. These appointed officials then voted to ratify the amendment. You think that's constitutional?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 (14th A.) granted by the federal government (Article 1, Section 8). Some of these mimic those enumerated in the Bill of Rights and create the impression that these federal citizens 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.Note:14th AmendmemtSection 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.You must pay your owner for privileges unlike Rights. Think you have a Right to marry? Why do you pay the government for a license (permission)? Think you have a right to: own a pet; travel in your own vehicle for non-commercial purposes (commercial activities can be licensed); peaceably assemble to redress grievances. Why do you need to pay for permission?"Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar o being citizen of 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 necessarily 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)OK, back to the 14th's "and of the State wherein they reside".I often use older California laws and codes because California was one of the last States to enter the Union before 1860's. As such, the original codes are untainted by the results of the undeclared, hence unconstitutional, War Between the States.The original California Codes stated: You were either a Citizen of California or one of the other several States, or you were an alien.Since the District of Columbia is not one of the several States, by law then the citizens thereof would be aliens if they were residing within one of the several States. Note the use of the word "reside" in the amendment. In law, the term "resident" CAN be used interchangeably with the words "resident alien". Do you receive post addressed to "Resident"?Back to "state". Note that it is not defined so it is assumed to mean the several States, but does it?4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States.You will see this definition throughout the US Codes, CFRs, and federal laws and regulations. Do you see the term "several States"? If not, they are excluded from all those Codes, laws and regulations. But then why are they being enforced within your State? Could it be that the States, such as the one you live in, are not one of the several States?"..... 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."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."Why is Article 6, Section 2 not used? It states:The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.Note that Rights are not included here because certain Rights are reserved for the particular State's Citizen, voting for State and local representatives being one of them.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, all grants by the federal government to its citizens are immunities and privileges not Rights.This is why the federal government can claim to extend its authority over the several States.One important proof of this is the fact that according to the SCOTUS a Right can not be taxed or licensed and the power to tax is the power to destroy.The courts have held that no matter what it is called, if the purpose of a law or statute is to raise money it is a tax. It doesn’t matter if it’s called a fee, user fee, entrance fee, parking fee, license or whatever, it’s a tax.Let’s see your license and registrationNote that a license is special. A license if defined in the American Heritage® Dictionary as:li·cense (lsns)NOUN:a. Official or legal PERMISSION to do or own a specified thing. See Synonyms at permission.b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal PERMUSSION: a driver's license.The Right to MarryA lot of you reading this have exercised your God-given RIGHT to get married. But, if you are exercising a right, why do you need permission from the government to do it? Years ago the government tried to validate it by stating you needed a blood test to prevent spreading disease but that’s not done now. So why do you need a license?Definitions from Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed:"license" "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.""marriage license""A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.""Intermarry" is "Miscegenation""Miscegenation""mixture of races; marriage between persons of different races, as between a white and a Negro."Some marriage licenses will actually state that its purpose is for interracial marriage."marriage certificate""An instrument which certifies a marriage, and is executed by the person officiating at the marriage; it is not intended to be signed by the parties, but is evidence of the marriage.Most of you are not part of a “marriage between persons of different races” so that isn’t the reason for modern marriage licenses. What else?Slaves could be married with permission from their owner(s). Of course all children and property acquired would belong to the owner. As shown before, the 14th amendment made you a citizen of the corporation known as the United States (Congress) and the 13th amendment allows the United States (Congress) to have slaves. Want more proof?Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties; the husband, the wife and the state.Van Koten v. Van Koten, 154 N.E. 146; 5-97-0108 in the appellate court of Illinois fifth district ---West v. West No. 93-F-92Justice Maag delivered the opinion of the court: This action was brought in April of 1993 by Carolyn and John West (grandparents) to obtain visitation rights with their grandson, Jacob Dean West. Jacob was born January 27, 1992. He is the biological son of Ginger West and Gregory West, Carolyn and John's deceased son...However, this constitutionally protected parental interest is not wholly without limit or beyond regulation. Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. 438, 442 (1944). "[T]he state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare." Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. at 442.In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State. When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State. Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926). The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183.(emphasis mine)SUBMIT: A yielding to authority. A citizen is bound to submit to the laws; a child to his parents; a servant to his master. A victor may enforce, the submission of his enemy.2. When a captor has taken a prize, and the vanquished have submitted to his authority, the property, as between the belligerents, has been transferred. When there is complete possession on one side, and submission upon the other, the capture is complete. 1 Gallis. R. 532.This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family. The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life.What about Liberty?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.It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution."The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221."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."The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.So if you have the right to travel, why do you need a driver’s license? Most people will respond the driving is a privilege and that you need training to drive on the roads to ensure your vehicle doesn’t injure or kill anyone.Remember though that a license is not training nor is it regulation, it is permission. So is there a difference between traveling and driving? There must be. But what is it?According to the Supreme Court and California (similar laws exist in all states) Motor vehicle laws are to license and regulate commercial activity. The term “operator” has been used to describe persons who engaged in the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation upon the public streets, roads and highways. In other words chauffeurs (busses, taxies) and folks who deliver goods who charge for the service are included. If you aren’t engaged in one of these commercial activities, you do not need a license. The term “operator” has been replaced by the term “driver” in most instances.If you try to use your personal automobile on the roads you will be ticketed and possibly have your auto impounded. Why?As a person under the 14th Amendment, you are a citizen of the Federal government with no Rights just immunities abd privileges.14th Amendment, 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 note 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 office, 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.15th Amendment (another Reconstruction amendment)SECTION 1.The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.SECTION 2.The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.The 15th Amendment further obscured the federal takeover of the Republic by supposedly preventing the several States from denying freed slaves from voting but, actually, preventing the several States from denying any federal citizen from voting in State elections.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.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 also created a "Federal area" overlay.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.).The Buck Act created a fictional Federal "State within a state". See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwartz v. O'Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d. 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440. (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.) This fictional "State" is identified by the use of two-letter abbreviations like "CA", "AZ" and "TX", as distinguished from the authorized abbreviations like "Calif.", "Ariz." and "Tex.", etc. This fictional State also uses ZIP codes which are within the municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial in nature and only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of Congress. (See American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909); U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); New York Central R.R. Co. v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32, 69 L.Ed. 828, 45 S.Ct. 402 (1925).)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:"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia] 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 16th was not properly ratified because some states modified the wording before voting on it which 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, the total control of DC and, by extension, its citizens. This alleged 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 (but that was only for We the People).