People’s Awareness Coalition

NOTE: The following article is based on international law (i.e. Law of Nations).

The important thing to understand when you read the following is- The United States Constitution is an international agreement between the state/nations of America i.e. the union of American nations i.e. the Union- “The United States of America”.

I have been telling people in America for about 5 years not to refer to themselves as individuals. To quickly get into the meat of the matter, my understanding of this came from the following:

The above is from the most popular- Freedom of Information Act. As one can plainly see an individual is defined as two types: 1) A citizen of the United States; and 2) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The latter is a person that the Congress has let into the United States to live as a “resident” of the de facto jurisdictions [1] (such a person also inhabits the de jure jurisdictions). Note that such a person is not a naturalized to be a U.S. citizen, but is just living in America i.e. he cannot participate in government; and in political observation- these people are here just to be: 1) industrial slaves; 2) consumers; and, 3) as people from foreign countries are subject to law of a foreign country they are in, taxed to add to the profit of the Federal Reserve System through the income tax system (they also add to the Social Security pool i.e. the ponzi-scheme). The International Bankers are the ones who orchestrated this; the industry just follows as a necessity to create the debt (to make the profit from the fiat money system (known at the Federal Reserve System)) through materialism. Ultimately, this is of purpose to create profit and gain through the interest that is created from the fiat money system that is of purpose to fund the over spending (materialism). The foregoing is more aptly referred to as— THE MACHINE.

If you doubt my foregoing analysis of which I have applied and for whom it truly applies to and its purpose, I further submit the following from the Code of Federal Regulations:

422.104(a) Persons with evidence of age, identity, and U.S. citizenship or alien status. A Social Security number may be assigned to an applicant who meets the evidence requirements in Sec. 422.107, [2] if the applicant is: (1) A U.S. citizen; (2) An alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting him or her to work in the United States.

As we already covered the term “alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence”, the most interesting thing in the above CFR cite is the legal verbiage “U.S. citizen”. I have determined that this term is held the same as “citizen of the United States” i.e. generally, the two terms are totally interchangeable see also the de facto voting statutes of the states in the Union, to participate in “this state” you must be a U.S. citizen or citizen of the United States.

As many may fail to remember/understand the principle of which I speak in my conclusion, I must go over it again in review and to clue others in that may have not read my material—

Hence, as I have covered before, [3] the phrase “citizen of the United States” is used in several amendments after its appearance in the fourteenth, such as the 15th, 19th and 26th. I have had numerous heated discussions with people that refuse to believe that the fourteenth amendment naturalizes people in the several states at their birth; and if in fact it does not, it is presumed that it does. It is obvious that the legal language of said amendment does this. As we definitely know the term “citizen of the United States” appears in the original body of the Constitution in many different sections, and also in the original 13th amendment. Below is the instant clause that sets forth the questionable citizenship in section 1 of the 14th amendment. It is as follows:

· 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. Collage

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, [4] are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. The language “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” establishes a so-called dual citizenship; specifically “and of the State” The use of the word “and” imports so-called dual citizenship—Federal and State (originally citizen of the United States meant a citizen of one of the many states of the American union (i.e. Union).

Below is the legal definition of such de facto citizenship as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary:

· Dual Citizenship. Citizenship in two different countries. Status of citizens of United States who reside “within a state” (i.e. in this state); i.e., persons who are born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S. and the state wherein they reside.

Before the passage of the 14th amendment, the phrase “citizen of the United States” was presumed to be a citizen of one of the United States of America. [5] This term was never defined by Congress to mean such; however, if we look at Acts of which Congress has enacted, we can find a significant pattern that establishes the true intent of the term. Such notwithstanding, as the term citizen of the United States is used in the fourteenth amendment as it is- It sets forth a specific terminology; hence, IT CAN NO LONGER MEAN ANY OTHER THING! The term “citizen of the United States” means a citizen and national of the federal government—PERIOD! A man that is claiming this status is: 1) A subject of the government of the United States; 2) A subject of its political subdivisions i.e. the state wherein they reside; and, 3) Is in rebellion to de jure law; which means he has disregarded the law of right set forth by the law of nations and Constitution to participate in the political system that is created by the fourteenth amendment. In order to participate in a political system that is foreign or different to one’s country or nation, one has to be naturalized. In the case of the 14th amendment system, no one has relocated, but is in a fictional overlay that has been established under the color of law. This in fact is how the International Bankers communist nation is created. To understand—review the foregoing and what it entails.

The people that are participating in this system are subject to all law (special and private) that is created by Congress and the state legislatures. [6] Accordingly, as they are in rebellion to their republics, these people do not have natural rights of which are protected by international law.

Now, back in reference to the definition evidenced from the Privacy Act and using common sense understanding, we know that most “patriot types” value privacy. Such privacy of which includes, but is not limited to, the federal government keeping records on them. This type privacy stems from the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The United States has no authority or right to keep records on the people of the states. However, it does have the power to keep records on U.S. citizens. I have made the case that a “citizen of the United States” is a federal citizen. If you are such a person you are an “individual”, and such a man or woman is not protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. For over the past 130 years, Americans believe that they have Fourth Amendment protections from actions by a state, when in fact, the state constitution is suppose to take care of this. The only time the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to you is when the United States government is involved. However, this is not the case in applying federal citizenship— The Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights is actually the state protection for federal citizens—and the state constitution really does not apply. In other words—Rights of such people are protected by the United States, not a state constitution.

Accordingly, we must remember what the Supreme Court said in regard to these matters:

“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.” [7]

The phrase “so to speak” means that: Eventually we plan to have a socialist, like a guy named Francis Bellamy, write a thing that goes something like “I pledge allegiance to my flag” and eventually change the words to “the flag of the United States of America” in place of my flag; but for now (1875)- the operations of law that are established by the 14th amendment are good enough to dupe the people who do not understand what really happened with the amendment until we get such phase of the fraudulent “one nation” brainwashing implemented with such measures. Or, in other words—Depending what issue of law is presented—is how the courts will rule, of which they will take under silent judicial notice that you have committed an act of rebellion against the state of which you were born in (or being that of an immigrant when you move to a different state in the Union see Communist Manifesto- Plank 4) by participating (i.e. “voluntarily submitted” in other words—committing an act of rebellion against your country/nation) in the political system created by the 14th amendment and they will make you “pay the penalties”.

Simply put— Your natural rights that are protected by the Constitution are Out the Door.

This is how to correctly interpret what the court is saying. Boy, are these communists (or puppets) not forthcoming with the true information or what? For many years I have always been told communists are sneaky. Anyway, getting back on point: The “Bill of Rights” is being used in a perverse manner for the federal nation. Other Amendments are also being used in a perverse manner. People, or rather “individuals” of the federal nation, that think that they have a “Right to Bear Arms” are sadly mistaken. The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is a privilege, not a right for federal citizens. [8] One might say that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is helping keep the socialist “peace” by protecting gun privileges. Accordingly, in regard to these matters, if you look at the definitions of most gun acts, the laws only apply to U.S. citizens.

To further expand on this individual subject, no legal puns intended, we must further look at other definitions that apply to this matter. As most “Patriot types” like to spend time banging their heads against the wall to controvert (argue) the Internal Revenue Code, let us look at some of the definitions from the section that sets forth the parameters of such: Title 26 section 7701:

(1) Person. The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation. [9]

(30) United States person. The term “United States person” means a citizen or resident of the United States. (resident = An alien lawfully admitted to the U.S. for residence)

(14) Taxpayer. The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

The last term is most interesting; however, to get the exact definition of what an individual is, we must go back to the Freedom of Information Act:

· Title 5 USC § 552a, as amended. Records maintained on individuals. (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section: (2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

Note that this is the language used by the “United States” in its Code. It does not apply to anywhere outside its jurisdiction. The term “individual” is defining a thing within the scope of its jurisdictions that are set forth by the Constitution. The term “United States person” is deemed to be a “citizen and national of the United States”, as defined by Title 8 section 1101(a)(22)(A). All terms are derivative of a “citizen of the United States”, a creature of the 14th amendment.

To get the full story on taxation i.e. the Income Tax, we must go to the Code of Federal Regulations to see who is truly a taxpayer, which is Income Tax on Individuals:

· Title 26 CFR § 1.1-1(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States.

Title 26 CFR § 1.1-1(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

Is it me. . . or is there a whole lot of fourteenth amendment language in those regulations? It should be noted that a “national” of one of the states of which are in the Union may be a payer of taxes but may not be a taxpayer. To get to the true payer of federal taxation under the original system, we must go to the Constitution under Article I, section 2. It is as follows:

Note it does not total free persons per state, but is collective i.e. whole number; so simplified:

Representatives will be apportioned among the several States according to the respective numbers of the states. Direct taxes will be apportioned by adding three-fifths of all other persons in the Union to the whole number of free persons in the Union. Such number does not include any Indians but includes those obligated to service. [10]

Article I, section 2, is written in such a way as to create vagueness as to give Congress some latitude to do what it wants in manner of legislation, of which is directed by other sections of the United States Constitution. The legal language of such section establishes two things: Firstly, it establishes a count of people to be taken for representatives in Congress; and, Secondly, a count of people to be taken for direct taxes (property tax or a head or pole tax). As there is absence of definitions that define exactly what “persons” are in this section, it is hard to determine what Article I, section 2, means exactly. One can only interpret what such section means in its entirety. We know that a free person would be one that is not a slave at that time of history; however, the language of adding three-fifths of other persons to free persons creates a difficult formula: What are “other persons” that are to added to “free persons”? We know that it does not include Indians, and we know that it does include ones bound to service (i.e. tenants of others land). What the section does is set-up the language for a census to be taken. Such term does show-up anywhere in the section mentioned, however, it sneakily shows-up in the following section:

· Article I - section 9. No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

We know that in international law that an “inhabitant” is a man that is not in a country that is his own i.e. he has no nexus to the people of a country. [11] In regard to the so-called census, I have interpreted that the complex formula established by Article I, section 2, sets forth that there are no borders of the states which are taken into consideration. The enumeration for the census is taken of all persons that are in the [U]nited States of America as a whole. As the ones that have established the premise of the Constitution believe and refer to the [U]nited States of America as a country, which it is not, gives credence to the definition of census from Bouvier’s i.e. the counting of inhabitants of the several states. In other words: Americans are not in the real country, but rather deemed in a feudal tenure i.e. the country created by the United States via the Constitution. Hence, when the original Constitution was created, there was a plot or a cabal to eliminate the state borders under operations of law; this even before the 14th amendment was implemented. Said amendment just repaired any other conflicting factors and pulled Americans even deeper into the foreign jurisdiction that is known as the United States— The Republic.

Accordingly, look at the following definition of “census” from American Heritage Dictionary:

In parallel relevance, we know that Article I, section 2, sets forth two things: 1) enumeration of the population for representation in Congress; and, 2) enumeration of the population for direct tax on property. Therefore, in this aspect, we can safely presume that the Republic known as the United States of America is similar to the Roman Empire in the manner of taxation. Under the Constitution, the United States is nothing more than a neo-Roman Empire (Republic = Empire).

Now, back to the crux of this article, the term—Individual. We can find the term used in Title 13, which is the Code that regulates the census for the United States. Look at the following:

(3) “respondent” includes a corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, proprietorship, society, joint stock company, individual, or other organization or entity which reported information, or on behalf of which information was reported, in response to a questionnaire, inquiry, or other request of the Bureau.

ENTITY is the key word in the above definition of respondent. It is true that an “entity” can be a being, actual or artificial. [13] The difference between “actual” and “artificial” is noting the difference between something that is created unnatural e.g. A man is natural, a partnership is not. The term “legal entity” defines a legal existence and is everything but a natural person. [14] As the term “individual” shows up in other legal documents, such as the Illinois constitution, the other premise for the “list” as noted in Title 13 USC § 1(3) is that—The term “individual” is to be considered synonymous with a United States person i.e. a citizen of the United States. [15] Now let us look at the term “individual” defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition:

· Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. See also person.

In view of all of the matters aforementioned, the term “person” could easily have been used in Title 13 USC § 1(3), as such defines artificial entities, e.g. corporations, and a natural person. Hence, to avoid any misunderstanding the ‘list’ could have read as follows:

“respondent” includes a corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, proprietorship, society, joint stock company, individual, or other entity or person which reported information, or on behalf of which information was reported, in response to a questionnaire, inquiry, or other request of the Bureau.

Such “list” would have covered the gamut of legal matters. Therefore, one can adequately surmise that everything listed in the Title 13 USC § 1(3) are artificial, including individual.

Now, let me drive this home by submitting to you the two definitions of body politic. One is considered a true government under international law i.e. the central or national government of a nation, and the other defines members of a corporation. The definition is as follows:

Now, applying these factors, we know that a citizen of the United States is a national of the United States, who is a member of the contrived nation that is created by the operations of law set forth by the fourteenth amendment. The fact is, under the premises of the law of nations, the current governmental system under the fourteenth amendment is not that of de jure like it was prior to said amendment. In law, a “natural person” is a man or woman that is a member of a nation i.e. a person. [17] Considering these factors of law, many have heard the term “straw man” used. [18] Although I believe the term is being misused, this is how the premise of such “entity” has been established. Below is the definition of the corporation known as the United States:

· UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. [19]

You see, the United States is, and always was, a corporation. Such does not represent a country nor a nation, but a multitude of such. The fourteenth amendment does not change this fact. All “operations of law” are contrived from the fourteenth amendment status. There is your so-called “straw man”. You are considered a member of the Body Politic that is known as the new United States. The Union is not operating as a system of bona fide national governments that extend outward to make the federation corporation; but rather, people are element of the body politic corporate known as the United States. Americans are being treated as legal fictions or artificial entities. Under the fourteenth amendment, depending what legal issue is addressed, one may be deemed an artificial entity, or may be considered a natural person. Thus, an individual is a citizen and national of the United States, and is one that has an “individual retirement account” and has to file “individual income tax”. In other words—Anyone that has not corrected his status and/or is benefiting from the money (financial) system is in the system. This means that you do not have to act as an agent for the fiction if you are one that has corrected his status.

SYLLABUS: All U.S. citizens are artificial entities i.e. individuals. I do not know about you, but God put me here on earth to be a man of a nation, not an individual of a corporation. [20]

· “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.”

· in·cog·ni·zant. Lacking knowledge or awareness; unaware: incognizant of the new political situation.

Hey, have a nice red “E Pluribus Unum” day! (E Pluribus Unum = many under one)

[1] Title 8 USC § 1101(a)(20). Definitions. The term “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed.

[2] Section 422.107. Evidence requirements. 422.107(a) General. An applicant for an original social security number card must submit documentary evidence which the Commissioner of Social Security regards as convincing evidence of age, U.S. citizenship or alien status, and true identity. An applicant for a duplicate or corrected social security number card must submit convincing documentary evidence of identity and may also be required to submit convincing documentary evidence of age and U.S. citizenship or alien status. An applicant for an original, duplicate, or corrected social security number card is also required to submit evidence to assist the SSA in determining the existence and identity of any previously assigned number(s).

[3] See also Inhabitant vs. Resident in volume 114, July 2001 edition, of The Red Alert and The Red Amendment.

[4] Statement by Justice Fuller in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark: “Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, made this remark: “The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states,* born within the United States.” 16 Wall. 73. *Foreign states foreign to the United States of America.

[5] SEE REFERENCE: Ex Parte- Frank Knowles, California Supreme Court, July term-1855.

[6] See “Special Maritime Jurisdictions” that are defined by Title 18 section 7 of the United States Code.

[7] See post-14th amendment case U.S. v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875). http://www.pacinlaw.org/cruikshank.htm

[8] See post-14th amendment case Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 615 (1886). http://www.pacinlaw.org/presser.htm

[9] Also these benefits from the U.S. under the IRC and the Social Security Number as defined by Title 26 USC § 7701(a)(37): Individual retirement plan. The term “individual retirement plan” means- (A) an individual retirement account described in section 408(a) and (B) an individual retirement annuity described in section 408(b).

[10] Service. In the civil law by service is sometimes understood servitude. Real servitudes are divided into rural and urban. Rural servitudes are those which are due by an estate to another estate, such as the right of passage over the serving estate, or that which owes the servitude, or to draw water from it, or to water cattle there, or to take coal, lime and wood from it, and the like. Urban servitudes are those which are established over a building fur the convenience of another, such as the right of resting the joists in the wall of the serving building, of opening windows which overlook the serving estate, and the like. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856.

[11] For details, see Inhabitant vs. Resident in volume 114, July 2001 edition, of The Red Alert.

[12] The term "requires" is not to be confused with "establishes". This is typical language used in the Code to confuse the reader into thinking something that is not

[13] Ballentines Law Dictionary, third edition.

[14] Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition.

[15] Title 26 USC § 7701(a)(30).

[16] Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856.

[17] PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856.

[18] Straw man. A “front”, which is a third party acting as an agent for another. Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition.

[19] 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. Opinion of supreme court justice Marshall, pre-Civil War. i.e. land management company.

[20] Census. Title 13 USC § 225. Applicability of penal provisions in certain cases (d) Where the doctrine, teaching, or discipline of any religious denomination or church prohibits the disclosure of information relative to membership, a refusal, in such circumstances, to furnish such information shall not be an offense under this chapter.