I came across some interesting court cases recently.

1787 -- The Constitution for the United States of America is written.

1819 -- Just 32 years later, while James Madision, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were all still alive, the Massachusetts Supreme Court said there were only citizens of the states:

The term, “citizens of the United States,” must be understood to intend those who were citizens of a state, as such, after the Union had commenced, and the several states had assumed their sovereignties. Before this period there were no citizens of the United States. Manchester v. Boston, Massachusetts Reports, Vol. 16, Page 235 (1819)

1821 -- Two years later, a federal court said a citizen of one state is a citizen of the other states, as well:

“A citizen of one state is to be considered as a citizen of every other state in the union.” Butler v. Farnsworth, Federal Cases, Vol. 4, Page 902 (1821)

1855 -- No such thing as “citizen of the United States”

“A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions.” Ex parte Frank Knowles, California Reports, Vol. 5, Page 302 (1855)

1868 -- 14th Amendment adopted. In the main body of the US Constitution, anyplace where “Citizen” was written, the word was capitalized. Starting with the 14th Amendment, and all amendments thereafter, the word “citizen” was lower-case. Interesting.

1873 -- Just 5 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, federal courts said this:

The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress. U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)

1875 -- 2 years after that, we have the US Supreme Court stating:

We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

1883 -- 8 years later, the Indiana Supreme Court said:

One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

1906 -- US Supreme Court (this case has never been overturned, and has been cited by other courts over 1,600 times, making it one of the most authoritative court cases in American law):

The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land (Common Law) long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)

1908 -- Florida Supreme Court, citing previous US Supreme Court rulings:

It is the duty of all officials whether legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, or ministerial to so perform every official act so as not to violate constitutional provisions. a. Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54; and, b. the contracts between them involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities: c. Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an individual entity, Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773 Montgomery v State 55 Fla. 97

1927 -- California Supreme Court:

there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,” Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

1953 -- Federal Court:

A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383 (1953)

1958 -- US Supreme Court:

The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

1968 -- District Court in Puerto Rico, citing US Supreme Court (natural, fundamental rights do not belong to US citizens):

Defendants’ error lies in assuming that the right to vote is an essential right of citizenship. The only absolute and unqualified right of citizenship is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States. US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957 [see: Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 US 298]

1993 - District Court case:

The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226

How to make sense of it all?

1776:

When the Declaration of Independence was signed, the 13 British colonies in America became free and independent States, on equal footing with all other countries of the world.

The People in each of these 13 States/countries wrote their own State constitution, identifying the powers of their State government, and limiting the authority of their government, while also prohibiting their government from violating the fundamental rights of the People in the State.

1787:

The People, via their representatives in Congress, assembled, wrote a new constitution to create a 14th government (“federal government”) to grant certain powers to it for a more efficient overall government experience. This federal government was granted certain powers that would apply within the States, such as regulating foreign commerce, but only such powers as enumerated.

In addition -- AND THIS IS KEY -- this document had a clause giving the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over the federal territories (powers beyond what was enumerated). So, the enumerated powers apply to the States, but all other powers ONLY apply to the federal territories and enclaves (military bases).

Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1-16 are the enumerated powers that the States granted to the federal government, for which the federal government has authority within the States (bankrupcy laws, postal services, foreign commerce, money and credit, military and war, etc.).

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 is a special power, where the States gave the federal government EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction (authority to make law) for ANY law, but ONLY applies to the people living within the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). This authority also applies to "federal enclaves," which are military forts, dockyards, and "needful buildings." But these enclaves are ONLY those geographic territories within States whereby the State's legislature granted full jurisdiction to the federal government by way of a legislative act. This is necessary for an army base, for example. Other than that, these laws DO NOT APPLY within the 50 States.

Article 4, Clause 3, Section 2 is also a special power, where the States gave the federal government EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction (authority to make law) for ANY law, but ONLY applying to the federal territories, which today are Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also some special districts created by international law in the international waters, and the federal government has authority there. Again, these laws DO NOT APPLY within the 50 States.

HOWEVER, these two clauses (Constitution 1:8:16 and 4:3:2) are what has been used to steal your rights. Congress passes a law that DOES NOT APPLY within the 50 States, because they do not have ANY jurisdiction to apply such a law within the States, and then they PRETEND it does apply. And since everyone, including the State bureaucrats have no idea what the Constitution and court cases have said, they "go along to get along."

The result is theft of YOUR rights.

1819:

The courts were already recognizing that there could be a confusion with the term “citizen of the United States.” They were clarifying that this term meant a “citizen of a particular State, and by means of that, also a citizen of THESE States, united.” But, there was NO SUCH THING as a “citizen of the United States, as in a citizen of the federal government.”

1868:

The 14th Amendment had a tricky clause, which created (or became construed as creating) a new class of citizenship, which was federal and NOT state.

Early 20th Century:

The courts were still recognizing that We the People, as individuals, have natural rights that the government (state or federal) cannot violate. But there was also a movement hidden in the shadows trying to pervert this idea. This was the time of the income tax and Federal Reserve creation (unconstitutional, btw).

Mid-20th Century:

The courts were recognizing these two competing ideas. There were those who were trying to trick everyone into thinking they were “US citizens” and at the same time not revealing that to be one of these, one would give up their natural rights. At the same time, some courts were reasserting the original concept, so as to remind Americans who they are (members of the sovereign class, and not subjects of the government, ruled over by a higher class -- which does not exist, in reality).

Current times:

Only people who have familiarized themselves with the REAL LAW of the United States of America (meaning, all the case law about this subject) understand that they are not citizens of an inferior class. However, the propaganda has been so strong, that these people are looked at by everyone else (myself included, until recently) … as crazy.

But really, who is crazy? Those who understand they are of the class of people who created the government, or those who believe they are inferior subjects who must do anything a government employee demands of them?

Are YOU a "citizen of the United States?"

Depends on who you are, and what question is being asked by what government agency.

For income tax purposes, the income tax applies to "United States citizens and residents."

And for that purpose, the definition of "United States" is the District of Columbia.

See definitions: 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and 26 USC 7701(a)(10).

Congress passed the Income Tax Act in 1913, where it said that a tax was imposed on "United States" citizens and residents.

It defined "United States" as: Alaska, District of Columbia, Porto Rico, and Philippines Islands.

Alaska became a federal territory in 1912. Porto Rico was misspelled by Congress when it became a federal territory, and the name was later changed to Puerto Rico. Both Puerto Rico and the Philippines became federal territories as a result of the Spanish-American War in 1898.

When the Philippines was granted independence, it was no longer a federal territory.

When Hawaii became a territory, both Alaska and Hawaii were included in the income tax definition of "United States." When each became a State, they were removed from the definition.

Puerto Rico and the other territories were given their own income tax laws.

So today, only the District of Columbia is listed as the "United States" for income tax purposes.

At no time has any of the States been listed. This is not a mistake. This is by design due to the limitations of the Constitution.

Prior to 1939, the regulations for the income tax said that "gross income" did not include "any item that is excluded by the Constitution or otherwise not taxable by the federal government."

Then, they changed it to "... unless excluded by fundamental law." (Fundamental law = Constitution)

Today, it says, "Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law."

Yes, excluded because the Constitution prohibits the federal government from enforcing a direct tax within the 50 States -- but DOES NOT exclude the same for the District of Columbia or the other federal territories.

But that is the federal income tax law. Other federal laws may be different.

Citizenship can be either state or federal. To be a federal "US citizen," one just be (a) born or naturalized in the United States, AND (b) subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

That means subject to the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the FEDERAL government.

Most Americans are born within one of the 50 States to parents who are also State citizens (but don't know it, due to the propaganda).

This makes most people members of the class of "We the People" at birth. But once you claim to be a "US citizen," you VOLUNTARILY allow the deception, and the government -- including the COURTS -- will assume you are what YOU SAY you are.

I suspect this is why all those court cases about the 2020 election were thrown out for ... LACK OF STANDING.

Nobody stood up and said, "I am a citizen of the State of Georgia, and my vote for presidential elector was not counted due to fraud by State election officials."

Instead, they hired an "attorney-at-law" to "represent" them. These attorneys are ALSO clueless about this aspect of law, because it was never taught to them in law school. This part of law was removed from the law school curriculum about 50-100 years ago.

So, the attorney, speaking FOR the person filing the lawsuit, claimed that the person was a "US citizen" and his "rights were violated via election fraud."

The courts, without saying it out loud, recognized that FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CITIZENS HAVE NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. Therefore, they HAVE NO STANDING in such a court case.

Food for thought.