Balls, I seriously "Fd" up. I thought everyone wanted their first class citizenship access, accounts and all. youtube/watch?v=20g3QIUnOgY My bad. Citizenship is a sacred, intangible property right. The Republic of California purports to protect this American right. It instructs all of its subjects about this right, from elementary school forward. This is its de jure conditioning agenda. Its daily deeds, from capital hill to its local police-city state operations, however, belie its public promise. I. Two Fed Republic Citizen Groups There are two groups of federal government citizens and corresponding laws presently applied in regulating federal residents: “Two national governments exist; one … maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other … maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.” a. First Class Fed Law (De Jure) First class federal citizen law maintained and applied under the United States Constitution is called de jure law; all states are required to and do instruct all residents in this regard, from minor to majors. That is, the one: [M]aintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions ….” b. Second Class Fed Law (De Facto) Second class federal citizen law is based on defined illegitimate or so called de facto law, which attempts to resemble or mirror de jure law, but transparently is not in practice. This class or citizen subject group’s law is not maintained by reference to the rules of the United States Constitution; instead, it is: [M]aintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.” No federal or state agency provides any education about this pivotal American subject. This omission directly crosses the very oath taken by every person holding a federal and state public office. c. Identifying Which Class of Law Rules? The key in identifying which class of citizen law one is subject to is marked by reference to the spelling or title or name in legal documents. One’s all capitalized name references application of de facto second class federal/state citizen law. A view of Court Cases before 1871 compared to those brought after 1970, as a quick reference, illustrates: ● Bonas v. United States of America ● Bonas v. The State of California Of right; legitimate; lawful; by right and just title. ● BONAS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ● BONAS v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Illegitimate - but in effect [for most, not all]. II. The Fed/State Citizen Option With regard to the police-county-state Republics doing business on United States territories like California, being a contract citizen subject to such foreign laws is optional. The Alabama Supreme Court confirmed this reality in 1909, before Ben Bernanke’s Reserve operatives seized control of the United State’s Senate’s monetary powers: "There are two classes of citizens under our form of [two] government[s], citizens of the United States and of the state; and one may be a citizen of the former without being a [taxed] citizen of the latter." It is axiomatic that before one can competently make a contract choice about one’s citizenship, one must first be informed of the terms of the contract. This, of course, assumes such a “second class” ruled by local Sheriff guns contract is valid in the first place. Referencing the People’s Republic of California illustrates this undisclosed citizen social contract problem. The state republic’s laws openly conflict with America’s Constitution in the most vital parts, pretending to mirror America’s Constitution: SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws …. a. Citizenship – An Intangible Property Right Citizenship is a sacred, intangible property right. The Republic of California purports to protect this American right. It instructs all of its subjects about this right, from elementary school forward. This is its de jure conditioning agenda. Its daily deeds, from capital hill to its local police-city state operations, however, belie its public promise. The state has completely concealed from federal citizens the option to be subject to its military muscle. Through this omission, it has in fact lifted residents’ citizenship property without any process, due or otherwise. It has done so through scores of false advertizing campaigns, including, but not limited to: 1) its own black and white’s “protect and serve” motto painted on its own militia’s vehicles; and 2) its state bar public educational materials. b. Equal Citizenship Protection State Republics avow to serve United States’ equal citizenship protection: In enforcing this … Constitution, no court of this State may impose upon the State of California … any obligation or responsibility with respect to the use of pupil school assignment …, (1) except to remedy a specific violation by such party that would also constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (2) unless a federal court would be permitted under federal decisional law to impose that obligation or responsibility … to remedy the specific violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. When three different bodies of law (United De Jure, United De Facto, States’ stuff) are placed over the same citizens’ heads, all of whom reside on the same federal land, how is one to assess and apply equal citizenship protection? Two certified cases in point illustrate this paradox: U.S. v. CASH BONAS (Not a legal, birth given name) CALI. V. CASH BONAS (Not a legal, birth given name) 1983 "Every [city-county-state paid] person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418 (1973). Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 (1901). Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 (1901). Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 (1901). Black’s Law Dictionary, at page 361 (Abridged 8th Edition, 2005 Thompson/West). Black’s Law Dictionary, at page 353 (Abridged 8th Edition, 2005 Thompson/West). Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 48 So. 788, 160 Ala. 155 (1909). CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
Posted on: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 02:19:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015