Should You Be a Citizen

Should you be a Citizen?
by: "I'm Eric, WhoRU?"
What Is A Citizen?
Most people seem to rely on dictionaries for the definitions of words - however it is a fact that
the information set forth in dictionaries does not in any way constitute the definitions thereof but
merely sets forth the common understanding of words as the words are commonly used - this is
what we understand to be correct "diction".
Put another way, the explanations of words set forth in dictionaries are erroneously referred to
as "definitions" , when actually, all a dictionary does is set forth the ever changing commonly
understood meaning of words - a dictionary does NOT set forth definitions of words - word
definitions can only be found in statutes or other legal writings where the meaning of certain
words are specifically set forth and "defined" as such words are used in such statutes or other
legal writings wherein such definitions are set forth. I would never allow any dictionary and
certainly not a so-called legal dictionary, to be used to establish the definition or understanding
of a word!! Instead I go to how the word in question was used and understood and applied in the
real life "diction" of the common people of the day.
In the case of the word "citizen"- from observation as to how "citizens" are treated in the United
States - it is clear therefrom that the word "citizen" as that word is applied to "citizens of the
United States", that in the United States the word "citizen" refers to a person whose lives, in
every aspect thereof, are totally under the dominion and control of the fictional political
government of the United States. From observation it is clear that the government of the United
States (and its sub entities knows as states, counties and cities) wield total and unlimited control
over every aspect of the lives of those persons who are designated as citizens of the United
States. A citizen of the United States has virtually ZERO authority in regard to his or her
own life - citizens of the United States are presently accorded the privilege of determining what
brand of toilet paper they may use and how many squares they may use to wipe themselves but
it is clear that this privilege may be withdrawn at any time and that the vast majority of citizens of
the United States would meekly accede to a government requirement that they save and turn in
their used toilet paper in exchange for fresh unused paper when the government decides to
require such - or - such citizens would readily comply with a governmental order that they are to
use both sides of their toilet paper before they will be issued fresh toilet paper.
So the foregoing is what a citizen is, as that word is applied in the United States - that is, a
citizen of the United States is a person whose life is totally under the political jurisdiction and
control of the government of the United States - with absolutely ZERO exception.
What Are The Duties And Responsibilities Of US Citizenship?
From observation of the docile submissive conduct of citizens of the United States it is clear that
citizens of the United States are totally convinced and accept and believe they owe total
unmitigated allegiance, service and loyalty to the fictional political government of the United
States.
Although there is what is called a Constitution, which is purported to restrain the government
and protest the rights of those persons who live in the United States - in practice citizens of the
United States acknowledge that this document's actual purpose is to allow citizens of the United
States to teach their children that they are free, when in truth, there is no freedom anywhere
within the United States - What this practice does is allow the citizens of the United States to
claim that they are free - the ability to claim that they are free has proven itself to be far more
precious to those who live in the United States than their ability to actually be free - after all - a
people who are actually free would have to take individual responsibility for providing their own
necessities of life rather than turning to the government to provide every such necessity.
Citizens of the United States freely acknowledge that their government has the power and
authority to conscript their productivity through any form of armed robbery it can devise
(euphemistically called "taxation"), and to use this conscripted wealth to institute and wage wars
on foreign governments and kill millions of innocent people in foreign countries for the purpose
of the US government gaining control over crude oil located in these foreign countries.
And the citizens of the Unites States allow and encourage their children to enlist in the military
of the United States in order for the US government to be able to have the ability to murder
millions of innocent foreign people for the purpose of stealing their crude oil - while the US
government publicly claims that the purpose of the foreign warfare is to fight international
terrorism - which the US government itself is most guilty of and itself instituted on 9/11/01, in a
phony "attack" on New York and the Pentagon.
Citizens of the United States eagerly allow and encourage every level of government of the
United States to create ever more laws regulating and micro-managing their day to day activities
- including (but not limited to) the insertion of ID chips under their skin - after all - if a citizen has
nothing to hide - then why would a citizen have any objection to such reasonable ID
requirements?
Such citizens allowed the fictional federal government to empower a privately owned central
bank to issue a worthless paper money where the private banksters then charge an interest,
impossible for borrowers to repay, and then the private banksters take their profits through
foreclosures on borrowers homes and other pledged assets - and the citizens of the United
States accept this fiat money system without complaint.
Plainly put, slightly rephrasing the words of the forth article of the Fourteenth Amendment -
"Citizens of the United States - shut up and pay up!!"
So, What Are The Benefits And Privileges Of US Citizenship?
You tell me!!
For a person born in the geographical area of North America - claimed by the fictional political
government of the United States to be under the political jurisdiction of the fictional United
States - I cannot discern any benefit whatsoever in a person so born in making such a claim!!
Moreover, it is highly doubtful whether a person born in North Korea or Communist China would
be politically any better off in the United States - as a naturalized citizen of the United States. Of
course this negative does not seem to apply to Mexican Nationals who are encouraged to sneak
into the United States and then are further encouraged and allowed to receive all manner of
government social benefits without paying for such benefits - paid for by the financial extractions
from the income of "citizens" born in the United States - extracted from such United States
citizens at gun point!!
If such persons born in North America were properly advised (full and honest disclosure), as to
the undeniable fact that when they were born they were born totally free and individually
sovereign and independent over their own individual person - with absolutely no fealty or other
political obligation to any fictional political entity created by persons born prior to themselves -
which of such persons so born would ever voluntarily opt into US servitude citizenship?
Why is it that parents of children born in North America teach their children that such children
are born in the United States when it is a totally absurd assertion to claim that a real live human
baby could ever actually be born into a fictional political entity that does not exist in nature?? If a
pregnant woman were to give birth to her baby in a Boy Scout camp - would her baby then be a
Boy Scout - what if her baby were a girl??
Why is it that fictional commercial entities, such as Wal-Mart, General Motors and about a
million other similar commercial fictional entities operate quite successfully on a voluntary basis
without employing gunpoint coercion?? Why is it that a fictional political entity, purporting to
have been created for the purpose of protecting liberty and freedom, chooses to resort to armed
robbery in order to fund its ability to protect liberty and freedom - and why does such a fictional
political entity claim that in order for the government to be able to protect your liberty and
freedom - that you must agree to give up your liberty and freedom?
How Does A Person Become A US Citizen?
Although it is widely accepted and believed that citizenship is acquired automatically by birth
within the political jurisdiction of a fictional political entity, such is nonetheless not the case!!
However a person might become a citizen, acquiring citizenship by birth is a total impossibility
and a total fraud!! Perpetrated by the tyrants operating fictional political entities of their own
creation and for their own selfish self-serving purposes.
It is of the utmost significance to fully understand the basic fundamental fact that governments
do not exist in nature - that governments are the intellectual products of the human mind!! How
can it be at all reasonable that certain humans who happened to be born prior to your birth -
have any proper natural authority to decide and declare that you owe political fealty to them and
must pay tribute to them?? The entire concept is totally silly!! How would you react if Wal-Mart
were to declare that you must purchase everything that you need from Wal-Mart and that you
must pay Wal-Mart whatever Wal-Mart decides to charge.
There is only one way that a person can properly become a citizen of the united States and the
operative word in that statement is "properly" - this would require a full and honest disclosure to
the person including everything set forth in the prior sections of this essay - with such a
disclosure it is impossible to imagine any sane mature person ever volunteering into US
citizenship.
Persons born in North America are told that they must attend school in order to be educated in
order to be able to take care of themselves in their adulthood. This is an outright lie. The clear
purpose of telling children and parents this nonsense is so that the government schools can
indoctrinate all children to believe that they are citizens of the United States as a result of being
born in the United States - which - as explained above - it is totally impossible for a real live
flesh and blood human baby to be born into a fictional entity that does not exist in nature (yes, I
know that is redundant).
If taxation (armed robbery) were eliminated as the means of funding government then there
would be no pressing need for the government to con people into being citizens!! If the
government were funded by a voluntary means then the government would not have to resort to
blatant dishonesty and coercion in order to gather its funding. Such a voluntary means of
funding government is already in place and gathering billions and billions of dollars every year -
however these billions are not going to the government - these billions are instead, presently
going into the private pockets of the private owners of the Federal Reserve - it is important to
understand that the Federal Reserve does not loan any of its own money or any of the money of
its private owners and the Fed has absolutely no investment or risk in any of these loans so
there is no justification whatsoever for the private owners of the Federal Reserve to be reaping
these huge profits - this must be changed and it must be changed now!!
If the issuance of money was transferred to The People's Central Bank and the issuance of
money was limited to lending of money to private sector borrowers where the interest collected
thereon was credited to the treasuries of the various levels of government throughout the Fifty
Several States, then taxation could be totally eliminated throughout the entire Federation and,
once this system was established in this country, the concept would then sweep over the entire
world, introducing a period of world wide prosperity never before experienced or even imagined
by mankind!!
Cheers,
I'm Eric, WhoRU??
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you a US citizen? 
As received...
To: MYRLANDsMETHODs@yahoogroups. com
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:07:20 +0000
Subject: [MYRLANDsMETHODs] Letter from friend on differant jurisdictions
J erry,
Thanks for sending the article. I have been trying to explain the different jurisdictions to people,
but boy it sure did raise cognitive dissonance in Don Cline a couple of weeks back.
The court cases that I include below fortify the fact that U.S. citizens are "resident aliens" within
their states of the Union that compose the Republic. I am also convinced that a foreign U.S.
citizen of D.C. accepts citizenship in the corporate structure that operates within his state of the
Union such as the 1857 "State of Iowa" that operates within the borders of the 1846 state called
Iowa.
To lawfully achieve total freedom under common law, U.S. citizens have to wake up to the fact
that they are citizens of "a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns
in the family of nations" such as red China and they are definitely not Citizens in the Republic
consisting of the United States meaning "the collective name of the states which are united by
and under the Constitution" . Under English common law you are a citizen of the country in
which you were born for life (in my case Iowa) and you can never ever expatriate from your
country in which you were born and you have no choice in the matter. Under the government's
Roman Civil law you can freely expatriate from your country of Michigan and voluntarily
choose to become a citizen of any foreign jurisdiction if that jurisdiction will accept you as its
citizen. The common law exists in the states while the Supreme Court has stated in Erie Railroad
v. Thompkins that there is no federal general common law. The Supreme Court has also opined
as follows:
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. HOOVEN &
ALLISON CO. v. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652 (1945): and
"The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one
State, and the other National; . . . . . The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily
submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so
to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for
disobedience to its laws. " U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542
This means the U.S. citizen has "voluntarily submitted himself" into being a foreign U.S. citizen
and "subject" to two governments under Roman civil law. The Declaration of Independence says
"deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." U.S. citizens born in the states
voluntarily provide consent for their just powers and don't even realize their subject status by
their citizenship in D.C.
There are two of nearly everything and this really confuses people. The Iowa Supreme Court has
stated that there are no common law crimes within "The State of Iowa". The courts of the
corporate "State of Iowa" will give the common law no standing, all while the Iowa Supreme
Court has also opined respecting Iowa, to wit:
We have previously acknowledged that although not expressly declared by our statutes or
constitution to be part of Iowa law, "the common law has always been . . . in force in Iowa."
Iowa Civil Liberties Union v. Critelli, 244 N.W.2d 564 (Iowa 1976) In the Supreme Court of
Iowa No. 125 / 05-0485 (Certified Question of Law)
This opinion was a certified question of law presented to the Iowa Supreme Court by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
All of this is why I have formally declared allegiance to my country of Iowa (not the corporate
State of Iowa) and I have renounced my U.S. citizenship in the foreign jurisdiction where there
are no rights but only privileges the same as if one voluntarily joins the Army.
George Gordon explains that if a person is feeling depressed and goes to the insane asylum and
tells the nice lady at the desk about it and checks himself into the institution, and after a couple
of weeks on Prozac he's feeling better, he cannot check himself out without the institution' s
permission. Under federal law, the only way a U.S. citizen can remove himself from the insane
asylum after checking himself in is by expatriation in accordance with its codified rules and
regulations. You can expatriate from the jurisdiction of United States by declaring allegiance to a
foreign country. The United States is a foreign corporation with respect to Iowa and Michigan.
My formal declaration of allegiance to the country of Iowa, with explicit declaration of
expatriation from the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, falls smack under United States
Code Section 1481 (a) (2), as the jurisdiction of the United States is foreign to the common law
jurisdiction of Iowa. We were born to U.S. citizens and a birth certificate was obtained for us and
we were registered as U.S. citizens. We were then the State's child and we could be removed
from our parents at any time under equitable proceedings for the best interest of the child. Why
were we were never taught by State certified teachers that if we wanted to be free as our
ancestors we needed to take appropriate action to achieve the status as free men under common
law in the Republic when we reached 21 (and now 18 years of age.) If we had taken appropriate
action we would be "non-taxpayers" as Citizens of the state of the Union in which we were born
and we would be capital [C] Citizens of the (several) United States as designated in the
Constitution and not small [c] citizens.
Fifty dollar bills are legal tender in the jurisdiction of the United States and in its 1857 sub-
corporation named "The State of Iowa" with its capitol in Des Moines. Fifty dollar gold coins are
lawful money under Article I, Section 10 of the federal Constitution within the common law
jurisdiction of the 1846 state called Iowa whose capitol is in Iowa City. The capitol in Iowa City
sits empty because basically all the free people in the Republic have expatriated to the
jurisdiction of the United States and under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of its sub
division "State of Iowa" and subject to the jurisdiction of its statutes. As subjects most people
elect representatives to pass such things as seat belt laws and driver license statutes for their
insurance companies that insure them. Free men practice strict liability under the common law,
and don't affect any public interest whatsoever. When a free man of the Republic is dragged into
court it will be presumed that he is a subject with a social security number thereby affecting a
public interest and needs to be regulated under public policy. This presumption needs to be
properly destroyed if we want to be free. I believe that the "state of Iowa" was created with its
1846 Constitution and is the Republic while the 1857 "State of Iowa" is a federal State for
passing law on U.S. citizens like Puerto Rico is the proper name of a part of the United States.
I'm sure a U.S. citizen and a resident of the "State of Iowa" under the Fourteenth Amendment
could just move to Puerto Rico and become a Fourteenth Amendment citizen of Puerto Rico with
the same U.S. privileges there, and have the same Form 1040 tax obligations there, or vice versa.
U.S. citizens that are residents of the State of Iowa are subject to statutes that are in derogation of
the common law while free men in the Republic are not. Statutes in derogation of the common
law law are advisory with respect to free men. Iowa Code Section 4.2 states: "The rule of the
common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to
this Code. Its provisions and all proceedings under it shall be liberally construed with a view to
promote its objects and assist the parties in obtaining justice." This means that an Iowa statute
must bend when dealing with a free man if the free man knows how not to consent to be
prosecuted under one of these statutes.
There is definitely a dual system between the states united under the Constitution and the United
States that is analogous to a mini-United Nations and headquartered in D.C. The U.S. income tax
system is a voluntary system and it is voluntary because it is predicated upon "citizenship" .
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They
relate to taxpayers and not to non taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is
prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in
due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject
nor the object of the revenue laws." Stewart v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce, 168 F.2d 709,
712.
Again, you can see the dual system. U.S. citizens residing in the 'State of Michigan' or 'State of
Iowa' are 'taxpayers'. This is why in an interview Harry Reid stated that he did not understand the
phraseology when talking about the voluntary income tax system and was then asked if he meant
that "taxpayers" don't have to pay their income taxes. To most ignorant people Harry Reid
looked like a blubbering idiot when he did not come right out and specifically let the cat out of
the bag. The Supreme Court has opined that the 16th Amendment added no new taxing powers,
but I contend that the Fourteenth Amendment did add new taxing powers for those people within
the states and wishing to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" so they can receive U.S.
socialized security or food stamps or "free?" State education for their children.
Being completely free and residing in the Creator who endows men with certain unalienable
rights, and not residing in the State for security, is a very scary thing for most people! It wasn't
always so scary when neighbors took care of neighbors in need, but with U.S. citizenship
everyone thinks the government should pick up the task. And the problem is you can't be
partially free in the Democracy that the founding fathers never had a good word for, nor put
Democracy in the Constitution. Being partially free is like a woman being partially pregnant. Old
Ben Franklyn indicated, "He who would give up liberty for a little security deserves neither.
Because people look back at the freedom our ancestors had while still enjoying constitutionally
secured rights in their state, and want to also live in freedom but are now "voluntarily" subject to
the jurisdiction that was foreign respecting our ancestors, the United States now has 5 1/2 times
the prison rate compared to the next closest sovereignty in the family of nations, [T]he Peoples
Republic of China.
A foreign U.S. citizen doing any business within a state is deemed to be in interstate commerce
and thereby subject to the commerce clause in the Constitution.
I am convinced that to be free we need to first achieve our status as sovereigns in our states,
abstain from interstate commerce over which the United States has delegated authority, and then
as free men we have to appropriately break that foreign jurisdiction in its court system that is
operating here in lieu of exercising jurisdiction at law. This foreign jurisdiction is the antithesis
of the common law of the states. Even if we have the status of free men, judges and magistrates
will continue to operate upon presumption that we are subject to their statutory law. The judges
operate under this law, to wit: "Whenever the Code creates a "presumption" with respect to a
fact, or provides that a fact is "presumed," the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact
unless and until evidence is introduced that supports a finding of its nonexistence. "
I believe that we, as sovereign free people, need to vey timely and properly challenge the
jurisdiction of these courts without ever pleading into their foreign jurisdiction with a "not
guilty" plea, nor ever allowing the judge to plead us into his foreign jurisdiction as if we are his
subjects, and we need to properly submit evidence to the trier of fact that shows our status as free
men to break the presumption that we are subject to his statutes within the jurisdiction under
which he operates.
Howard Freeman used to pose the following question to the judges while equity has no
cognizance of criminal matters, "This court has two criminal jurisdictions. One is a common law
jurisdiction and the other is a condition of contract under the criminal aspects of an admiraly
jurisdiction. Under which jurisdiction is this court planning to try this case?"
A soldier in the Army is in admiralty jurisdiction by his enlistment contract and if he doesn't peel
potatoes when the sargent say so, it is criminal.
The Bible says: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." I always tell the grandkids,
"Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is forever." And boy have I overcome a bunch of
ignorance in about the last 10 months after spending some time in jail and putting information
from George Gordon, Bill Thorton, and others together in my head.
Merle