The following is from The Red Alert, the monthly Newsletter from PAC.

Non-member subscription is 55 dollars a year.

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”.

Inhabitant vs. Resident.

By LB Bork of the People’s Awareness Coalition

For those who have read The Red Amendment, you understand that things are basically set-up to benefit the ruling elite. I say this not only from the standpoint of the fourteenth amendment, but it has been planned that way since day one. Yes, I am talking about the original Constitution that was drafted by the founding fathers of the United States of America.

Accordingly, as the indoctrination has been progressive, and is still going on today, [1] we must look at a few issues that are legally involved. First, I will direct you to some language that is found in the original body of the federal constitution; but before I do that, let me state that the following language has perplexed me for about 3 years. Up until recently, which about 6 months ago when it came to me while I was reading an original French translation of The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel, I can openly state that I did not fully understand what I am about to show you had really meant- But I know now without question what I am going to explain truly means.

To open this presentment, the following two clauses of which I am going to show you are taken from Article I of the original Constitution, and contain 3 issues each that I will cover; but first I will cover the issue in each one that covers the word “inhabitant”; they are as follows:

·        Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of 25 Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

·        Article I, Section 3, Clause 3. No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of 30 Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the united States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

First, and getting off point a bit, if one would examine the term “congress”, they would find that such term is relative to international law. Accordingly, see “congress” defined below: 

·        congress. In international law. An assembly of envoys, commissioners, deputies, etc., from different sovereignties who meet in concert measures for their common good, or to adjust their mutual concerns. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition

Of course, that definitive explanation is from Black’s Law, 4th, that has been since removed in the new editions of Black’s, in order that “they” may keep all Americans ignorant.

As defined, you can see that a congress is an assembly of several sovereignties. Unlike other countries, such as England, the people of each state (country) in the Union collectively make-up the sovereignty of each respective state (or nation), and the sovereignty of each state (or nation) of which has not been transferred [2] to the State of the Union, is reserved to each state (or nation) respectively; such “international right” is protected by the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

The reason I brought this to your attention at this time is- I have come to understand through my research that there is one most important factor to sovereignty, which is- Absolute control of land. Hence, the nexus between a people and sovereignty is- The absolute control/ownership of land of their country. Any public land (i.e. land not under private ownership) is then transferred to the State (i.e. the central or national government for such nation) for control. There are other very important factors that are attached to this of which I will go over herein below.

Now we may continue on why the word “Inhabitant” was utilized in Article I. Simplified, in applying syntax, both sections above cited from said Article set forth that: Both members that are elected to Congress (an international organization), by their nation or State, respectively, shall not be an inhabitant of the country of which they represent. Further clarified, because this is fundamentally a “word puzzle”, as the “drafters” of the original Constitution were intentionally trying to conceal the truth so that only the most “prominent legal scholars” would understand the true “construction” of the Union, and the ultimate plan, what such parts of said Article simply state is that- All representatives and senators must be a “national” of the country they represent, and must not be an inhabitant. To further clarify this matter- Congressional members must owe political allegiance to their state, nation or country. In other words- One that is part of a sovereign body must owe allegiance to it to properly and/or legally represent it, and accordingly, any such person must be a national of (or have the nationality of) any such sovereign body.

You may be asking why the language of-  “No Person shall be a Senator who shall. . ., when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen” was used instead of simply stating- No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have the nationality of the country of which he is elected. The answer simply is- Because this would make it too easy and it would “spill the beans” on the planned creation of the “Communist Nation” that is under the direct control of the entity entitled the United States (and its rulers) that is (are) treating Americans as vassals. [3]

Now, as I stated above, there are three issues that are involved in this section which create its seemingly planned complexity. I have covered the first issue, which was the usage of the word or term “Inhabitant”; accordingly now let us look at the other two—

One might venture that maybe this is not as devious as stated. As many undoubtedly know, I have covered the term “citizen of the United States” extensively in the past. Firstly, I am not one that buys into the capitalization of the word “citizen” as having any relevant content to being that of a de jure citizen. One reason being- There are many other words in the body of the original Constitution that are capitalized, which no really clear meaning can be assigned. It is hard to say, as the terms of the Constitution were not defined, but it is my opinion that the term “Citizen” may take on the same irrelevance to having any special meaning, as many of the other capitalized words in the document did not. In furtherance of my position, as the original 13th amendment applied to Americans that either participated in any of the several State governments or federal government, another point is- The term “citizen” as it was used in the original 13th amendment was not capitalized. My two positions on this subject should totally denounce any position that the capitalization of the word “citizen” in the original Constitution means anything special, and accordingly, any argument as to such word meaning anything special being that of frivolous.

All such matters notwithstanding, the term “citizen of the United States” is still utilized in the body of the original Constitution; to amply explain the usage of such, we must look to another relevant part of the Constitution, which is Article II, section 1. Such section is as follows:

·        No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The two important references here are: 1) natural born citizen; and, 2) citizen of the United States. Respectively, what is defined in (1) is: A native (native = native state national) of one of the [U]nited States; and in (2): a “person” (which such term I will go into more depth below) that lived in any/many of the united States of America for 14 years, at the signing of the Constitution. The use of “resident” in the above section is important, inasmuch as such term is fundamentally the same as the term “inhabitant”. Now, in further reference to the term “resident” in said part of Article II listed above, such is just stating that: As he was unknown- so was his “domicile”, so anyone that was to be President of the United States of America at the signing of the Constitution must have lived in one, or any, of the [U]nited States of America for a period of at least 14 years to become President; and speculating, must have the nationality of, and owe allegiance to, any such state when he ran for the office. The use of the term “natural born citizen” is simply to reference that any President must be born in one of the countries of the Union thereafter.

Accordingly, now, back in reference to the other two issues that are referenced in Article 1, sections 2 and 3, the most important thing to note is that: The same terminology is found in these 2 sections, which is “citizen of the United States”. Again, like in Article II, section 1, such term is just to reference that a representative or senator must, respectively, live in one of the [U]nited States of America, seven or nine years at the ages set forth, in order to be a member of Congress; and again; not be an “inhabitant” of the country of which they have been chosen to represent.

So, in reference to the usage of the term “citizen of the United States” in the body of the original Constitution (or the original thirteenth amendment), it is just in reference to being that of a member of one of the nations of the American [u]nion and having the guaranteed political right to participate in state or federal government. However, as I stated in the new version of The Red Amendment, after the usage of “citizen of the United States” in the fourteenth amendment, the term can only mean a “person” or “subject” of the federal government, as the language of: “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.” is used. The word “and”, as used in this section, sets forth a so-called dual citizenship, such status de facto as being virtually, as a matter of fact, “nonexistent” before the passage of said amendment. [4] The “dual citizenship” persona is the nexus to vassalage in the fourteenth amendment political system. 

 As I stated herein above, I mentioned that I would expand on the term “person”- and now is a good time to expand on such term. The term generally has a negative affiliation attached to it; however, it really depends on the context it is used. The term itself is just a position that explains or sets forth a certain “status” or “persona” of a man or woman. Below such is defined:

·        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, 1856

So you see, the term is not always negative. If you are not a “person” you are not a member of a nation, and therefore you are stateless, hence have no protections internationally. That is why I emphasize that status is the key to natural rights that are secured to the Constitutional system that is established in America. Your “persona” is the status you hold in such system. In other words- what “person” are you? If you are claiming to be a U.S. person i.e. a citizen and national of the United States (see Title 26 section 7701(a)(30)), you are a “resident” of the country of which you are dwelling in, or an inhabitant of. This is the “alternate jurisdiction” that has been established largely by the 14th amendment governmental system. The term “inhabitant” appears in section 2 of the fourteenth amendment; and the term “reside” appears in section 1. In order for you to fully understand of what I assert, let us go over some important terms that relate to such matters:

·        RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. [5]

·        INHABITANT. One who has his domicil (see footnote 6 below) in a place is an inhabitant of that place; one who has an actual fixed residence in a place.

The natives consist: 1) Of white persons, and these are all citizens of the United States, unless they have lost that right. 2) Of the aborigines, and these are not in general, citizens of the United States nor do they possess political power. 3) Of negroes, or descendants of the African race, and these generally possess no political authority whatever, not being able to vote nor hold any office. 4) Of the children of foreign ambassadors, who are citizens or subjects as their fathers are or were at the time of their birth.

Both from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

As you can see, an “inhabitant” takes on many different statuses, and includes the meaning of having a domicile and being that of a native of a location, and also may be an Indian or one of African decent; and a “resident” comes into a location and may remain there or may establish his domicile. We already know that U.S. representatives and senators cannot be inhabitants of the states that they represent, but yet the above states that all white persons (at that time) that were citizens of the United States were also deemed inhabitants. Using common sense, an inhabitant has no connection to a fixed area- He lives in a location by habit- see below:

• In-habit-ant, n. One that inhabits a place, especially as a permanent resident: the inhabitants of a fishing village; snakes, lizards, and other inhabitants of the desert.
• habit, n. A recurrent, often unconscious pattern of behavior that is acquired through frequent repetition.  Both from American Heritage Dictionary

So by logical conclusion, using what has been set forth in the Constitution, the term “natural born citizen”, which is a man born into a specific nation (applying the principles of Vattel); and the term “citizen of the United States”, which defines a naturalized man, or can be construed to mean a man in one of the sundry [U]nited States, is either an inhabitant or a resident of any one of the [U]nited States, or may have claimed his domicile thereof. Largely, the term “citizen of the United States” was just a simply way of stating that one had a right to participate in the political system of the United States. The use of the word inhabitants in section 2 of the 14th amendment imports that anyone that lives in the state, who is a “citizen of the United States”, may vote or participate in the 14th amendment political system. In general, before the 14th amendment, any person that was born in any one of the [U]nited States could move to another state in the Union and participate in government, as long as any such person was allowed. I have seen such being true documented. It was usually stated as being that of comparable to how the first President was qualified- in other words- One had to be “resident” in the state for a certain period of time before he could become governor, representative, etc.. These rules were generally written or attached to a constitution of a state. Such persons then had a national domicile and were no longer residents.

To further explain the difference between inhabitant, resident and domicile, let us look at another definition from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856:

·        Domicil. The law affixes a domicil. 1. Public officers, such as the president of the United States, the secretaries and such other officers whose public duties require a temporary residence at the capital, retain their domicils. [6]

As you can plainly see, all officers of the United States (President, senators, etc.) retain their domicile, but have a residence in Washington D.C.. This means that such officers maintain the nationality of the state they are from- be it their natural (native) state, or an acquired one.⁷ In Vattel, i.e. the rules under the Law of Nations, a man owes a natural allegiance to his state or country of birth.⁷ When he abandons his birth country, with the intention of never coming back to it, he may be “expatriating” or simply just emigrating from it. Unless a man gives his express allegiance to another sovereign, he maintains natural allegiance to his birth country. Generally, when one is naturalized into another country or body politic, natural allegiance is then negated; then any such person is no longer a “resident” or an “inhabitant” of a country, but rather has established a domicile and a new nationality. Since there has been a concerted effort since day one to convince everyone in America that the United States of America is a nation, these matters have never been discussed or expressly documented in American law books. The reason why is to create a feudal system with Americans being in fiefdom, thus having the United States acting as their sovereign. Of course, this is just the presumption that has been established; the large part of it has been created by operations of law, which are largely caused by the 14th amendment.

The legal language that is used in the 14th amendment, such as “inhabitant” and “resident”, imports confusion of the different jurisdictions that are established. To expand on this, and to get at the matter at hand, as stated- “resident” and “inhabitant” are somewhat synonymous; and such terms are not at all relative to nationality or being a member of a nation. Earlier I stated that things did not become clear until I read an original French translation of The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel. The edition that is listed in the Library of Congress, which is published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, uses the term of “resident”, in chapter XIX, of book 1, as being a man that is not a citizen of a country; however, in the original French translation, the same chapter defines a “resident” as being an “inhabitant” (and also, is not a citizen). So, in my mind the two words are synonymous. Both terms embody a man that lives or dwells habitually in a place/country not his own or that he does not have political ties to. One that participates in the 14th amendment governmental system (i.e. a person that maintains U.S. citizenship or votes) has forfeited his right to be a sovereign part of his country and has given it to the United States, thus, is a vassal/subject. Such a person is a “resident” of the true country that has been overlaid by the fraudulent country (USA) created by the color of the 14th amendment; the United States, which includes the several States de facto, that U.S. citizens have installed (i.e. have voted for), is/are acting as an absolute sovereign over the “people” [7] of each state in the Union. This is generally why the States and United States claim sovereign immunity when one attempts to sue them.

To clarify, so that you understand completely- A “resident” or “inhabitant” is not living in his country as a national of such country or as part of its sovereignty, but is actually a dweller in a foreign or unattached jurisdiction and owes his allegiance to another or foreign (i.e. different) sovereign. In other words- there is no absolute right to the land of which any such resident or inhabitant lives. All land rights of such a person are purely that of: 1) purchase i.e. commercially based ownership, like that of a person of a foreign country or sovereignty; [8] and/or, 2) privileged usage i.e. similar to that of a serf or vassal affiliation to a sovereign, which again is fiefdom:

·         fiefdom, n. 1. The estate or domain of a feudal lord. 2. Something over which one dominant person or group exercises control (e.g. Congress). American Heritage Dictionary.

This is simply how the “socialist/communist system” has been created under the fourteenth amendment- With the United States and the de facto States acting as the sovereign (king), by an operation of law people have been “lifted” from their connection to the land so that their absolute ownership or title is negated; this so they may be taxed for the “benefit” of the whole. Of course this is considered servitude, which is directly prohibited by the “new” 13th amendment, however is tacitly remedied by having people commit treason to their “state of right” by tricking them into participating in the 14th amendment governmental system, thus, making them commit a crime (treason or breach of allegiance) so they may be put into involuntary or forced servitude. [9]

Of course the rulers go unscathed in this system. Again, we must consider that the language of “who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.” As being used in Article I. The word “when” means simply- at the time that. Such Article does not state “who shall not, after elected, be an inhabitant. . .”, being in reference to having to leave the state (or country) of which he represents to go and have a “residence” in Washington D.C. (but is not truly, in pure sense, a “resident” [10] of such district). It is obvious that such language relates to before or during the election, which is to mean, as I stated earlier herein, being a national of such state or country or having allegiance to such state or nation. The language (inhabitant), as used in Article I, was believed to have been stealthily established hoping that the people of America could be moved around to the different states in the Union with not knowing their absolute right to land. As we can aptly find established in American law, or general usage, the term or word inhabitant can mean anything from a slave to a snake, and includes a citizen of the United States. This being in opposition to Vattel, who termed an “inhabitant” as a man that was in a country not his own. But we must remember, a citizen of the United States [11] can be an inhabitant (and be in the [U]nited States of America) if he is in a state or country that is not his own. In view of this, I have seen a lot of tricks in my years of study. One must scrutinize everything, such as: The term “inhabitant” also appears in Article II that is in reference to presidential elections, and is as follows: “The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.” Again, the language of “shall not be an inhabitant” appears. I read such to say the following: At least one person (but also- both) who is chosen to be President cannot be an inhabitant, nor can the elector i.e. all presidential candidates and electors must have a nationality or a relationship to the state of which they are affiliated. In other words- The language in said Article has no purpose, it is just gibberish with purpose of: 1) creating confusion; and, 2) sets forth the nexus of being associated to the state/nation that they represent in the international organization- The United States.

In conclusion: Americans are dwelling [12] in the “true countries” of the Union as inhabitants or residents. Americans that are not nationals of their state or country are essentially detached from the land and are in essence subjects or vassals. In view of such, this is how the federal parks have been founded (e.g. “This land is my land. . . This land is your land” = communist conditioning), all such land being an adverse possession with respect to “nationals de jure”. The nexus to true sovereignty is maintaining/expressing nationality of one of the countries of America.

·     “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax”

Plank 2- Communist Manifesto, 1848

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

Communist Manifesto, 1848

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

Word for Word from the American Heritage Dictionary, 1998

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

People’s Awareness Coalition  constitutional education and counsel

POB # 313

Kieler, Wisconsin [53812]

www.pacinlaw.org