• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Freeman on the Land in America/lawful rebellion/sovereign citizens

I'm now struggling to keep track of his idiocy. Try this one -

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059844130&postcount=246

There are two types of person;
1. natural [YES] [a man considered as an individual] [UH, YES], and
2. artificial [YES] [to him considered as related to others] [UH?].

One describes that person which mimics man; the other pertains to that which operates as an aggregate or collective [WHAT'S GOING ON?].

Rights are annexed [the act of attaching, uniting, or joining together in a physical sense; consolidating.] to the persons; not the living man [NOOOOOOOOO!!!].

He's winning, he's almost there, the tape is in sight..... Oh no he's tripped over his laces again.
 
Last edited:
yes your right therival58 it did, thats obvious when you read it.

sorry but what are you referring to by "it"?

By "It" I was referring to where the FOTLers get the idea of strawman and the american people becoming "corporate slaves", and according to what I posted they believe this whole thing originates from the 14th amendment.

See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4xV4MTnCdc

Maybe your post was sarcasm, forgive me if it was.:o
 
the 14th amendment of course, when you read it the strawman theory jumps off the page.

It must be the fatigue but I am not seeing it. When you say the strawman theory "jumps out" reading the 14th amendment, I am only seeing it *vaguely* in section 1. What else am I missing JB? :confused:
 
Keep reading it, maybe let your eyes relax, a bit like one of those magic eye books.

hey maybe there is a legal conspiracy here - an ignorant simpleton like me cannot see through the legalese in the 14th amendment that secretly means we all have a strawman:D
 
hey maybe there is a legal conspiracy here - an ignorant simpleton like me cannot see through the legalese in the 14th amendment that secretly means we all have a strawman:D

It's quite simple really. Read the 14th amendment and watch the video which you linked. Which do you believe? Does the amendment define US citizenship or is it a huge conspiracy to sell all Americans into slavery by the artful captitalization of United States and by using the term subject to jurisdiction.

It's your choice.
 
It's quite simple really. Read the 14th amendment and watch the video which you linked. Which do you believe? Does the amendment define US citizenship or is it a huge conspiracy to sell all Americans into slavery by the artful captitalization of United States and by using the term subject to jurisdiction.

It's your choice.

Your 14th amendment is entirely irrelevant. I do not live in the US of Arrogance, nor does most of the population of this planet.

Feel free to explain why your rules obviate any others.
 
the FOTLers concept of strawman and the american people becoming "corporate slaves" originates from the 14th amendment.

See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4xV4MTnCdc

hey maybe there is a legal conspiracy here - an ignorant simpleton like me cannot see through the legalese in the 14th amendment that secretly means we all have a strawman:D

It's quite simple really. Read the 14th amendment and watch the video which you linked. Which do you believe? Does the amendment define US citizenship or is it a huge conspiracy to sell all Americans into slavery by the artful captitalization of United States and by using the term subject to jurisdiction.

It's your choice.

So you're telling me that the language in the 14th amendment is worded to actually accommodate and make the case for the FOTLers claims? The video posted discussed how the original definition of 'citizen' was to be a citizen of a US state, thus maintaining individual sovereignty there, not a citizen of the district of columbia federal government.

If that is the case, what about the supremacy clause? Doesn't that provision in the constitution trump this idea?
 
Your 14th amendment is entirely irrelevant. I do not live in the US of Arrogance, nor does most of the population of this planet.

Feel free to explain why your rules obviate any others.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that you were part of the conversation. Had you followed it you'd know that they were discussing an American FOTL claim from the start. Perhaps you're confused by the thread title? Some thread drift is allowed here, especially when we're 138 pages in. There's only so much FOTL in the world; no point in limiting the discussion to one country.
 
By the way, on the discussion of 14th amendment and citizenship, can anyone get full text copies of these court cases?

"The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state."

United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.


"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state."

Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966) 221 A.2d 431 p.433

Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909)
 
Last edited:
So you're telling me that the language in the 14th amendment is worded to actually accommodate and make the case for the FOTLers claims?
therival58
Its actually down to you to make your mind up, read the 14th Amendment and watch your video, then make up your mind, why do you want people to tell you what to believe?

If that is the case, what about the supremacy clause? Doesn't that provision in the constitution trump this idea?
What about the supremacy clause and what impact does that have on the FMOTL idea?
 
therival58
Its actually down to you to make your mind up, read the 14th Amendment and watch your video, then make up your mind, why do you want people to tell you what to believe?

I'm not entirely convinced by the FOTL interpretation of the 14th amendment but I won't completely dismiss it either. The video brought up some interesting points regarding how it established the people under the 'jurisdiction' of the US government which is opposed to the 9th and 10th amendments.

I'll have to see some court cases to verify this.

What about the supremacy clause and what impact does that have on the FMOTL idea?

here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
Striking similarities exist between the supremacy clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Both of these are parts of the Federal Constitution that define the Federal Government's supremacy over the States regarding laws that have been delegated to the federal government in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. A difference between the two, however, is that whereas the Supremacy Clause deals with the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, the Fourteenth Amendment deals with the relationships among the Federal Government, the States, and the citizens of the United States.

basically, from what I understand, FOTLers assert that before the 14th amendment, citizenship was considered in accordance with a state one resides, not the entire US (e.g. citizen of the sovereign state of Virginia). But according to the interpretation of the supremacy clause, federal law reigns supreme, so they would be considered "Citizens of the United states" regardless.
 
Last edited:
So you're telling me that the language in the 14th amendment is worded to actually accommodate and make the case for the FOTLers claims? The video posted discussed how the original definition of 'citizen' was to be a citizen of a US state, thus maintaining individual sovereignty there, not a citizen of the district of columbia federal government.

Not at all. I was just saying make your own mind up. Sorry if I was unclear.
 
By the way, on the discussion of 14th amendment and citizenship, can anyone get full text copies of these court cases?

"The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state."


United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.


This is a beautiful example of the CT echo chamber effect. Google that exact phrase, and you'll find numerous CT type sites with the exact same quote. Well, actually it's a "quote mine" and a slightly inaccurate one, because they exclude the parts that follow directly after it:



The 14th Amendment created and defined citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by
many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the
United States, except as that condition arose from citizenship of some State. No mode existed, it was said, of obtaining a
citizenship of the United States except by first becoming a citizen of some State. This question is now at rest. The 14th Amendment defines and declares who should be citizens of the United States, to wit: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The latter qualification was intended to exclude the children of foreign representatives and the like. With this qualification every person born in the United States or naturalized is declared to be a citizen of the United States, and of the State wherein he resides.


http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/courtinstr.html


From the context, it's clear that the quoted portion found on CT sites was discussing the situation as it existed prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment. But from the later parts, it's clear that the judge was saying that this was no longer the case, due to the 14th amendment. Far from supporting the notion that there's no citizenship aside from being citizen of a particular state, he's explicitly saying that such is no longer the case.

The really sad part is, in not having the intellectual curiosity or capacity to bother finding out if the quote is at all accurate, they miss out on some material that would be even better for supporting the Fotler mythos, such as this:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/sentencing.html

Judge Hunt -(Ordering the defendant to stand up), "Has the prisoner anything to say why sentence shall not be pronounced?"

Miss Anthony- Yes, your honor, I have many things to say; for in your ordered verdict of guilty, you have trampled under foot
every vital principle of our government. My natural rights, my civil rights, my political rights, my judicial rights, are all alike
ignored. Robbed of the fundamental privilege of citizenship, I am degraded from the status of a citizen to that of a subject; and
not only myself individually, but all of my sex, are, by your honor's verdict, doomed to political subjection under this, so-called,
form of government.

Judge Hunt- The Court cannot listen to a rehearsal of arguments the prisoner's counsel has already consumed three hours in
presenting.

Miss Anthony- May it please your honor, I am not arguing the question, but simply stating the reasons why sentence cannot,
in justice, be pronounced against me. Your denial of my citizen's right to vote, is the denial of my right of consent as one of the
governed, the denial of my right of representation as one of the taxed, the denial of my right to a trial by a jury of my peers as
an offender against law, therefore, the denial of my sacred rights to life, liberty, property and-
 
"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state."

Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966) 221 A.2d 431 p.433

Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909)



This one is a bit more complex. But of course they brush all that under the rug

http://md.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19660701_0040168.MD.htm/qx

The facts are not in dispute. The appellant was born in the West Indies and immigrated to the United States in June of 1957. He and his family established their residence in Crisfield, Maryland. Upon reaching his eighteenth birthday, and upon signing his Declaration of Intention to become a citizen

[243 Md Page 558]

of the United States under the federal Naturalization law, he enlisted in the United States Army, served for approximately three years and was given an honorable discharge in 1960. He established his residence in Salisbury, Maryland, and matriculated at the Maryland State College from which he was graduated in 1964. He then entered the University of Maryland Law School and has successfully completed his first year. In May of 1964 he established his home in Baltimore City, where he has since resided. On April 29, 1966, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States and a registered voter of the State of Maryland. On May 26, 1966, the appellant filed his candidacy for the office of Sheriff of Baltimore City with the Board of Supervisors of Elections of Baltimore City. His Certificate of Nomination was notarized and accepted, as was his filing fee of $150. He received the usual material given to all candidates who file for public office. On June 4, 1966, he received a letter from the Board advising him that he did not qualify as a candidate for the office of Sheriff because he did not become a citizen of the United States until April 29, 1966, and that under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution he did not become a citizen of the State of Maryland until that date. The Board acted on the advice of its counsel, the Attorney General of Maryland, and returned the application to the appellant together with the filing fee.

The court below held and the Board contends that the appellant did not become a citizen of Maryland, under the provisions of the Maryland Constitution, until he became a citizen of the United States, and is therefore ineligible to be Sheriff of Baltimore City because he was not a United States citizen at least five years preceding the election. We disagree.

Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1875); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 73-74 (1873); and see Short v. State, 80 Md. 392, 401-02, 31 Atl. 322 (1895). See also Spear, State Citizenship, 16 Albany L.J. 24 (1877). Citizenship of the United States is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutes, but the requirements for citizenship

[243 Md Page 559]

of a state generally depend not upon definition but the constitutional or statutory context in which the term is used. Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82, 93 (1862); Halaby v. Board of Directors of University of Cincinnati, 162 Ohio St. 290, 293, 123 N. E. 2d 3 (1954) and authorities therein cited.

The decisions illustrate the diversity of the term's usage. In Field v. Adreon, 7 Md. 209 (1854), our predecessors held that an unnaturalized foreigner, residing and doing business in this State, was a citizen of Maryland within the meaning of the attachment laws. The Court held that the absconding debtor was a citizen of the State for commercial or business purposes, although not necessarily for political purposes. Dorsey v. Kyle, 30 Md. 512, 518 (1869), is to the same effect. Judge Alvey, for the Court, said in that case, that "the term citizen, used in the formula of the affidavit prescribed by the 4th section of the Article of the Code referred to, is to be taken as synonymous with inhabitant or permanent resident."

There is no express requirement in the Maryland Constitution that sheriffs be United States citizens. Voters must be, under Article I, Section 1, but Article IV, Section 44 does not require that sheriffs be voters. A person does not have to be a voter to be a citizen of either the United States or of a state, as in the case of native-born minors. In Maryland, from 1776 to 1802, the Constitution contained requirements of property

[243 Md Page 561]

ownership for the exercise of the franchise; there was no exception as to native-born citizens of the State. Steiner, Citizenship and Suffrage in Maryland (1895) 27, 31.

The Maryland Constitution provides that the Governor, Judges and the Attorney General shall be qualified voters, and therefore, by necessary implication, citizens of the United States. Article II, Section 5, Article IV, Section 2, and Article V, Section 4. The absence of a similar requirement as to the qualifications of sheriffs is significant. So also, in our opinion, is the absence of any period of residence for a sheriff except that he shall have been a citizen of the State for five years. The Governor, Judges and Attorney General in addition to being citizens of the State and qualified voters, must have been a resident of the State for various periods. The conjunction of the requisite period of residence with state citizenship in the qualifications for sheriff strongly indicates that, as in the authorities above referred to, state citizenship, as used in the constitutional qualifications for this office, was meant to be synonymous with domicile, and that citizenship of the United States is not required, even by implication, as a qualification for this office. The office of sheriff, under our Constitution, is ministerial in nature; a sheriff's function and province is to execute duties prescribed by law. See Buckeye Dev. Corp. v. Brown & Schilling, Inc., 243 Md. 224, 220 A.2d 922 (1966), and the concurring opinion of Le Grand, C.J. in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. State ex rel. Bd. of Police, 15 Md. 376, 470, 488-90 (1860).

Under the Fourteenth Amendment all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside, but we find nothing in Reum or any other case which requires that a citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved. As the authorities referred to in the first portion of this opinion evidence, the law is to the contrary.


...but of course, that's not quite as pithy.
 

Back
Top Bottom