A Treatise on the Word “Person”

Originally started writing this page on 4/6/25. First completed version of this page was on 4/14/25. Last updated 10/25/26.

IMPORTANT NOTE 1: My 3.0 Free Contract Killer Course covers this entire Treatise and also the flowchart in vast detail on the 1st and 2nd videos. I recommend you sign up for that and also read this (this Treatise has been heavily expanded upon, adjusted and clarified since the 3.0 videos were shot… but the videos still give an excellent base then you can come back here and read this Treatise in full).

IMPORTANT NOTE 2: You can find a flowchart that has the key aspects of this page all boiled down into one chart. There is also a poster available for sale. This flowchart should be something that you put up in your home and look at constantly every day because it will be something you want to memorize. The flowchart is called “Flowchart: Constitutional v. 14th Amendment Protections and Obligations” and you can find the newest version available on this page: https://www.theamnestycoalition.org/resources-and-documents

IMPORTANT NOTE 3: This may very well be the most important single document that has ever been presented before you to study in your entire life. If you embark to read this entire page, it is of the highest importance that you NEVER PASS ANY WORD, SYMBOL OR PHRASE THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. If you do, you will typically begin to yawn, maybe even get tired, forget what you are reading and, eventually, give up on attempting to reading this. I’m not saying this Treatise is easy to read… because it isn’t. What I’m saying is that, if you put in the work and take your time to carefully understand all the information on this Treatise, I can pretty much guarantee you that it will impact your life more than anything you have ever read or watched in your entire life. Use simple dictionaries to ensure comprehension as you go. I have attempted to remove all large words or define them to the best of my ability, but the job to ensure comprehension ultimately sits on your shoulders. So please be careful and caring to yourself as you move through this document. I have spent over 15,000 hours in research to bring this page to you and I do so entirely for free, so put that into perspective when you realize it could take you only 5-40 hours of real work to understand something that took me 15,000+ to put together.

IMPORTANT NOTE 4: You may want to plug this Treatise into some kind of text-to-speech app. I found a few just searching around but I had concerns about privacy so did not attempt to use them. Many of them also have a monthly cost associated with them. But if you are not much of a reader, you may want to look into this as a better option than trying to read this page as text.

I. Introduction

Treatise means: “a written work dealing formally and systematically with a subject.”

Since I started my adventure into the study into law in September 2021, the word “person” has always been the crux of most confusions, difficulties, upsets, etc. There is literally endless confusion as regards to this word and it is the single word that has caused a complete breakdown and destruction of our glorious country of America.

After many years of heavy research into various areas of the law and due to some massive breakthroughs in research… we now have enough information to map the entire breakdown of and loss of original knowledge of the most important word in all existence… a word that 99.9% of people don’t even realize is literally one of the biggest issues in our entire culture and in all other cultures around the world.

This page is the most important piece that I have ever written on anything in my entire line of research and will completely transform the life of anyone who takes the time to understand it and realize the implications that it has on their life.

This page will attempt to walk through the entire timeline of the word “person,” the word “persons,” the word “people,” etc. For newcomers this may sound ridiculous or strange but I assure you that it is not.

In today’s world, the term “person” is so far gone and so beyond confusion that it is in a state of complete oblivion. The definition of “oblivion” is “the state of being unaware or unconscious of what is happening.”

No one is even aware that this word does not mean anything even REMOTELY close to any assumptions they may have on the subject.

II. The original definition of “citizen” - At Both the State Level and Federal Level

For the purposes of this section we need to review three areas: what constituted citizenship in each of the original 13 States of the Union, what constituted the definition of citizenship at the Federal level, as well as what citizenship looked like at the level of naturalization (meaning: people born elsewhere and coming here to become citizens). Keep in mind as we go through this section, there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” yet and that term, as used in the US Constitution, only referred to citizens of each State. I’ll show you all the evidence of that later in this Treatise.

Section A - State Citizenship by Way of the Original 13 States

Birth was the only concern of the States in terms of citizenship because the only other avenue to citizenship, naturalization, was given the to the Federal government under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. The main focus on this section is to focus in on race, because that is where most of American law quickly went after we became a country. Also, keep in mind that the word “free” is used for both whites and blacks, typically. That word was typically meant to mean, simply: “not enslaved.” It should be noted that babies born by slaves were not born free and would not qualify to be citizens. We will talk about how each of these sections operated leading up to the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, which is where the negro lost all Federal recognition of citizenship (which we will cover later in detail):

Virginia: At the start, the 1779 act drafted by Thomas Jefferson and passed 26 June 1779 declared: “all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth” citizens.

Massachusetts: The 1780 Constitution (written almost entirely by John Adams, personally) declared that “all men are born free and equal” and contained no racial bar on voting (unlike the rejected 1778 draft, which would have limited voting to white males). Property qualifications applied to men generally. Slavery was held incompatible with the constitution. Free native-born black inhabitants were citizens and, once qualified, were voters from the founding onward. This continued all the way until the Dred Scott case.

New Hampshire: Free native-born inhabitants, including those of African descent, were citizens at the adoption of the State Constitution and the Federal Constitution, and those meeting other qualifications voted. This continued until the Dred Scott case.

New York: The 1777 constitution did not racially limit birth citizenship. Free black men who met the property qualification could vote. Gradual abolition of slavery began in 1799. An 1811 law required black men to obtain a certificate of freedom to vote. The 1821 constitution imposed a $250 freehold (a “freehold” is referring to the value of land possessed that has no debt attached to it. So a “$250 freehold” would require the free blacks to own property valued at at least $250 without any debt attached to it in order to vote) requirement on “men of colour” while lowering barriers for white men. Birth itself was not redefined; free persons born in the state remained citizens, but most free black men lost the practical ability to vote by the Dred Scott case.

New Jersey: Originally, free native-born black inhabitants were citizens, and qualified free black men voted. Early practice therefore treated birth in the state as conferring citizenship on free persons. New Jersey ended black voting in 1807. A substantial free black population remained under unequal rights up until the Dred Scott case.

Pennsylvania: The Declaration of Rights stated that all men are born equally free. Free black men were born as citizens of this State. In 1838 a Constitutional amendment confined the ability to vote to “white freemen,” stripping most free black men of the vote while leaving the underlying birth-citizenship rule for civil status unaltered in statute. Free black people born in the State continued to be treated as inhabitants with limited rights up until the Dred Scott case.

North Carolina: Early constitutions and practice recognized free native-born inhabitants, including free black men who met property tests, as citizens and voters at the founding. Negroes and other persons of color were not allowed to be witnesses against a white man in court. They could only testify in court against another black man. In State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838), Justice William Gaston wrote that slaves who were freed in the State become freemen, “and if born within North Carolina are citizens of North Carolina—and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.” Political power was not required for citizenship. Subsequent statutes imposed heavy disabilities (testimony limits, licensing, restrictions on migration), but the 1838 holding that free birth in the State conferred State citizenship stood up until the Dred Scott case.

Maryland: Birth in the State made free white people citizens in ordinary practice. Free black persons faced registration, testimony, and mobility restrictions that withheld full political citizenship; no general statute equated free black birth to white birth citizenship. Those disabilities remained in force in up until the Dred Scott case.

South Carolina: Pre-Constitution requirement was “born of English parents.” After the Constitution this requirement remained and only free white people born in the State were citizens. Free persons of color were recognized as free but were subjected to extensive legal disabilities and were not treated as full citizens. This continued until the Dred Scott case.

Georgia: The 1777 and later State Constitution treated free white people born in the state as citizens. Slavery was central. Laws progressively restricted free Black residence, required guardians or registration in some periods, and barred political rights. This continued up to the Dred Scott case.

Connecticut: Free persons born in the State were citizens in the ordinary sense. The 1818 Constitution restricted voting to white males. Courts and officials treated free black persons born in the State as holding a limited civil status short of equal political citizenship. This continued until the Dred Scott case.

Rhode Island: Free native-born persons, including free black inhabitants, were citizens; black men voted when they met property tests. The political rights for black men narrowed as the State progressed towards the Dred Scott case.

Delaware: Free white persons born in the state were citizens. Delaware remained a slave state with a large free Black population. Statutes required free Black registration, limited testimony against whites, and restricted migration and assembly.

Section B-1 - State Citizenship as Recognized by the Federal Government

This was entirely prefaced on Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, which states:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Since there was only two ways to achieve citizenship, birth or naturalization, birth was a State concern because it is domestic in nature, whereas naturalization became the only real concern of the Federal Government.

The only way that we can easily evaluate this is by looking to see if there are any previous examples of blacks entering Federal courts and being recognized as citizens under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

There is really only one that can be found readily which is kind of a unique one because Roger B. Taney (same guy who gave the opinion on the Dread Scott case) was actually opposing counsel on this case: Le Grand v. Darnall, 27 U.S. 664 (1829). Taney actually talks about this case in the Dred Scott opinion.

Besides that case, it was uncommon that a black man would be a party in a Federal case… but it wasn’t unheard of. It occurred occasionally up until the Dred Scott v. Sandford case.

Section B-2 - Federal Naturalization Law for Those Noncitizens Looking to Become Citizens of a State

In the case Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135, 162 (1892), the Chief Justice Melville Fuller gave the definition of “naturalization” to be: “the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen.”

The power to naturalize was given exclusively to the Federal government in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, which States: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This makes perfect sense because the entire original purpose of our political system was told perfectly by Thomas Jefferson when he said: “My general plan would be to make the States one as to everything connected with foreign nations and several as to everything purely domestic.” Our original system allows us to have a very individualistic and separate States which operate as separate nations domestically, but then unite together into one on the international sphere.

Section 1 of The Naturalization Act of 1790 is where our journey into naturalization begins, with a text that reads:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States...

For those of you that are new to my research, the term “resident” is quite important in the above quote because it is specifically used in reference to aliens prior to their 2 years being complete (“resident” means “foreigner/immigrant,” which is why people are “residents” during their 2 year period while naturalizing. A “resident” is “someone who is working on becoming a citizen but hasn’t completed that process”).

The term “alien” just meant someone who is not a citizen of a State. We’ll cover that more soon so don’t get too confused about this.

1790 was the first version of the Naturalization Act, but 1802 was the last updated version and the version that is currently active. So what were the initial points that needed to be met in order to gain citizenship in the United States (if not born in a State of the Union)? Well let’s break down the above quote by specific point:

1. Was previously an alien (not yet a citizen of a State).

2. Meets the criteria of being a “free white person.”

3. Has resided (meaning they are not a citizen of a State yet) in the U.S. for 5 years as an immigrant (with one year in the State of application). (it was originally 2 years residence and they extended it to 5 in later updated Acts).

4. Demonstrates “good moral character” and swears an oath to support the U.S. Constitution.

5. Relinquishes all other allegiances or citizenships worldwide.

Now, it’s important to keep in mind that there was only “State citizenship” at this time and the term “US citizen” or “United States citizen” was not a specific and separated type of citizenship at this time (and wasn’t until 1866). SO THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION IS HOW SOMEONE WOULD BECOME A CITIZEN OF A STATE OF THE UNION. We’ll cover more about that later and it might be best to read through this page 2-3 times to make sure you understand the entire timeline.

So what is the definition of a “free white person”? Let’s look in Black’s Law 4th Edition to figure that out:

1. meaning all persons belonging to the European races then commonly counted as white, and their descendants, including such descendants in other countries to which they have emigrated.

2. It includes all European Jews, more or less intermixed with peoples of Celtic, Scandinavian, Teutonic, Iberian, Latin, Greek, and Slavic descent. It includes Magyars, Lapps, and Finns, and the Basques and Albanians. It includes the mixed Latin, Celtic-Iberian, and Moorish inhabitants of Spain and Portugal, the mixed Greek, Latin, Phoenician, and North African inhabitants of Sicily, and the mixed Slav and Tarter inhabitants of South Russia. It does not mean Caucasian race, Aryan race, or Indo-European races, nor the mixed Indo-European, Dravidian, Semitic and Mongolian peoples who inhabit Persia. A Syrian of Asiatic birth and descent will not be entitled to become a naturalized citizen of the United States as being a free white person. Ex parte Shahid, D.C.S.C., 205 F. 812, 813; United States v. Cartozian, D.C.Or., 6 F.2d 919, 921; Ex parte Dow, D.C.S.C., 211 F. 486, 487; In re En Sk Song, D.C.Cal., 271 F. 23. Nor a native-born Filipino. U. S. v. Javier, 22 F.2d 879, 880, 57 App.D.C. 303. Nor a native of India who belonged to Hindu race. Kharaitf Ram Samras v. United States, C.C.A.Cal., 125 F.2d 879, 881.

“Shoo-wie, Brandon… that’s quite specific.” Yes, you are correct. It is not just the color of someone’s skin… it was laser-precise. Skin color is an INDICATOR of nationality but is only one piece of the puzzle… not the entire conversation.

The way naturalization works is very simple: there is essentially a period of almost like “proving yourself.” Kind of like when someone “rushes” a fraternity or sorority in college or maybe needs to work to make new friends when they move to a new job or school. This transition period could be considered a period of “naturalization” where you are a “resident” of the new zone until you fully assimilate then your status changes from a “resident” to a “citizen.” We’re going to talk much more about this as we progress into this Treatise so if it doesn’t make sense yet, don’t worry.

III. More Quotes to Paint the Path Between Our Beginning and the Dred Scott Case: The Tightening of the Privileges and Immunities Offered to the Negro

In Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. (1 Litt.) 326 (1822), The Kentucky Court of Appeals rejected the claim that a woman of color was a citizen of Pennsylvania or Virginia entitled to the Privileges and Immunities Clause (I will make personal notes in brackets):

1. Free negroes and mulattoes [half white/half black] are, almost everywhere, considered and treated as a degraded race of people; insomuch so, that, under the constitution and laws of the United States, they cannot become citizens of the United States. It is true, that when the plaintiff resided in Pennsylvania and removed to Virginia, the constitution of the United States had not been adopted; and prior to its adoption, the several states might make any person they chose, citizens. But as the laws of the United States do not now authorise any but a white person to become a citizen, it marks the national sentiment upon the subject, and creates a presumption that no state had made persons of colour citizens.

2. And as it respects Virginia, we know that free people of colour have never been considered or treated, either in practice of the country or by the laws of the state, as possessing the rights and privileges of citizens. On the contrary, they are incapable of holding the lowest office in the government; they do not enjoy the right of suffrage, and cannot even be a witness in a civil case. In short, they possess not one of the privileges which are peculiarly characteristic of a citizen, and not even all those which are by courtesy allowed to aliens and strangers, while residing in the state. The plaintiff, then, not being a citizen, either of Pennsylvania or Virginia, cannot be entitled to the benefit of the clause of the constitution in question [referring to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1]

3. Prior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had a right to make citizens of any persons they pleased; but as the federal constitution does not authorise any but white persons to become citizens of the United States, it furnishes a presumption that none other were then citizens of any state; which presumption will stand, until repelled by positive testimony.

In State v. Claiborne, 19 Tenn. (Meigs) 331 (1838), Justice Green, for the Tennessee Supreme Court, upheld a statute making it a felony for a free person of color to enter and remain in the state, against a Privileges and Immunities challenge (notes from me will be in brackets):

1. Undoubtedly, there may be in a State, a class of people with limited privileges and immunities, who may still be called “citizens,” but it is not in this sense that the word is used in our Constitution. See 1 Niebuhr’s Hist, after 965; Potter’s Greek Ant. book 1, c. 10 — particularly page 73, Boyd’s Ed. Glasgow 1837; Vattel, book 1, sec. 213. The words are: “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges.” The citizens meant in this provision are those who are entitled to all, not some privileges and immunities. But free negroes are not entitled to all the privileges of white persons in any of the States. They, therefore, are not citizens in the sense of the Constitution.

2. Who then is a citizen? Chancellor Kent says, 2 Com. 258, note, that the term is “appropriate to republican freemen;” and certainly among the Romans, where the term had its origin, a citizen was entitled to all privileges, immunities and rights, civil and political. Free negroes have always been a degraded race in the United States, having the right, it is true, of controling their own actions and enjoying the fruit of their own labor, but deprived of almost every other privilege of the free citizen, and constituting an inferior caste in society, with whom public opinion has never permitted the white population to associate on terms of equality, and in relation to whom, the laws have never allowed the enjoyment of equal rights, or the immunities of the free white citizen.

   As this was the description of these people, at the time the Constitution was adopted, can we understand the word “citizen” as used in the section under consideration, as applicable to them?

   “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,” says the Constitution. The citizens here spoken of, are those who are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens. But free negroes, by whatever appellation [definition: a name or title] we call them, were never in any of the States, entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens, and consequently were not intended to be included, when this word was used in the Constitution.

   In this country, under the free government created by the Constitution, whose language we are expounding, the humblest white citizen is entitled to all the “privileges and immunities” which the most exalted one enjoys. Hence, in speaking of the rights, which a citizen of one State should enjoy in every other State, as applicable to white men, it is very properly said, that he should be entitled to all the “privileges and immunities” of citizens in such other State. The meaning of the language is, that no privilege enjoyed by, or immunity allowed to, the most favored class of citizens in said State, shall be withheld from a citizen of any other State. How can it be said, that he enjoys all the privileges of citizens, when he is scarcely allowed a single right in common with the mass of the citizens of the State?

   It cannot be; — And, therefore, either the free negro is not a citizen in the sense of the Constitution; or, if a citizen, he is entitled to “all the privileges and immunities” of the most favored class of citizens. But this latter consequence, will be contended for by no one. It must then follow, that they are not citizens.

   But it is contended that they are an inferior order of citizens, subject to many disabilities, and that when they remove into another State, they are entitled to all the “privileges and immunities,” which free negroes in such State enjoy.

   In the first place, this argument is already refuted, if we have shown, that a person entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens, cannot be restricted in any rights which any class of citizens exercise.

3. Upon the whole, by whatever appellation we may designate free negroes, whether as perpetual inhabitants, or citizens of an inferior grade, we feel satisfied, that they are not citizens in the sense of the Constitution and, therefore, when coming among us, are not entitled to all the “privileges and immunities” of citizens of this State.

   It is contended that this act is in derogation [definition: degrading the law] of the 8th section of the bill of rights of this State. We think the word “Freeman” as used in the bill of rights, is of equally extensive signification with the word citizen as used in the Constitution of the U. States: and that although the defendant by his emancipation in Kentucky, obtained a qualified freedom, be did not become a “freeman” in the sense of Magna Charta, or of our Constitution.

   In these instruments, the word is used in its largest sense, and means, as does citizen in the Constitution of the United States, one who is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the most favored class of the community.

   An emancipated slave, is called a freeman in common parlance, and in reference to his former state, he is so, having acquired privileges and immunities which he did not enjoy before. But in reference to the condition of the white citizen, his condition is still that of a degraded man, aspiring to no equality of rights with white men, and possessing a very few only, of the privileges pertaining to a “freeman” or “citizen.”

   But this provision of our Constitution can only apply to our own citizens, and not to foreigners. If this law applied to Englishmen or Frenchmen it would be constitutional, were it not for treaties and naturalization laws; for surely every free State has a right to prevent foreigners going to it, and to punish those who violate such laws.

   The language must therefore be restricted to freemen of this State, for the protection of whom, alone, the provision is made.

In Pendleton v. State, 6 Ark. 509 (1846), which is a case about an indictment on a black man who violated a statute that prevented free negroes from coming into Arkansas and settling, the Court says the following quotes:

1. Are free negroes or free colored persons citizens within the meaning of this clause? We think not. In recurring to the past history of the constitution, and prior to its formation, to that of the confederation, it will be found that nothing beyond a kind of quasi citizenship has ever been recognized in the case of colored persons.

2. If citizens in a full and constitutional sense, why were they not permitted to participate in its formation? They certainly were not. The constitution was the work of the white race; the government, for which it provides and of which it is the fundamental law, is in their hands and under their control; and it could not have been intended to place a different race of people in all things upon terms of equality with themselves. Indeed, if such had been the desire, its utter impracticability is too evident to admit of doubt. The two races differing as they do in complexion, habits, conformation and intellectual endowments, could not nor ever will live together upon terms of social or political equality. A higher than human power has so ordered it, and a greater than human agency must change the decree. Those who framed the constitution, were aware of this, and hence their intention to exclude them as citizens within the meaning of the clause to which we have referred.

In 1832, Roger B. Taney was the US Attorney General under Jackson. During that time he wrote an opinion concerning South Carolina’s Negro Seamen Act, which was not officially published. This quote is not from any case and is not case law or should it necessarily be used in any cases… this is just for context. The passage commonly quoted from the manuscript (as printed in the Maryland Historical Magazine) is:

The African race in the United States even when free, are every where a degraded class, and exercise no political influence. The privileges they are allowed to enjoy, are accorded to them as a matter of kindness and benevolence rather than of right. They are the only class of persons who can be held as mere property, as slaves. And where they are nominally admitted by law to the privileges of citizenship, they have no effectual power to defend them, and are permitted to be citizens by the sufferance of the white population and hold whatever rights they enjoy at their mercy. They were never regarded as a constituent portion of the sovereignty of any state. But as a separate and degraded people to whom the sovereignty of each state might accord or withhold such privileges as they deemed proper. They were not looked upon as citizens by the contracting parties who formed the Constitution.

*****

With all this said, let’s summarize each individual and specific issue that the white race had with treating negroes as equals in an effort to understand the path that the negro may have to walk in order to address the concerns of the white race:

1. The entire structure of government and the writing of the Constitution was all a product of white Europeans that were mostly or entirely Christian. Why must they share the bounties of that work with other races? The negro, or any other race for that matter, would need to contribute massively to the intrinsic structure of the system. Like rallying to remove the 14th Amendment under the heading of “negro citizenship reform” - even to the point of saying “we would rather have nothing than the 14th Amendment.” In my opinion, that would be a huge step in the right direction.

2. The negro did not aspire to greater heights, nor had any desire to put in the work required in himself to be worthy of having equal rights. This requires a desire to learn, to improve, etc. Apparently this is not something that was seen in the black man by the white man in anything more than very rare and exceptional examples.

3. Essentially, the white man needs to believe that the black race has raised itself up to the level of being a full member of the sovereignty in accordance with the Magna Carta… this is what the white man has always desired and never seen by the black race, according to the historical texts. This would require the negro race to display tremendous self-reliance, etc.

By reverse-engineering the points brought up in these cases, we have a clear path that the negro race could walk, if they so pleased, to eventually qualify to be a member of the sovereignty of the State. Complaining about inequality doesn’t work and has never worked, the only functional option would be to address the white man’s objection to equality with the negro with ACTIONS, not with words.

IV. The Dred Scott Case: The Total Re-Defining of the terms “people” and “persons” as Well as the Obliteration of the Federal Recognition of the Negro Under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1

Originally found in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of our Constitution (The Slave Trade Clause), we see this term “persons” used to describe colored persons of African blood. This distinction between “We the People” and a “persons” is sharply described in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1857).

In this case, which is regarding a released slave attempting to gain citizenship of a State. It should be noted here that, since Dred Scott was not born a citizen of his State, his only avenue to citizenship was by way of naturalization… which is exactly why this case went the way it did. So keep that in mind as you read this… this case is essentially a naturalization case but it was so aggressive that it spilled over onto the birth side as well.

Here are the key quotes from the then Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, the Honorable Roger Brooke Taney (bold-words and underlines added to bring attention to specific words):

1. The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty

2. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

3. In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

   It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

   They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

   And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa, and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use; but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world.

4. But there are two clauses in the Constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed.

CAREFULLY READ THE ABOVE QUOTES OVER AND OVER, TAKING TIME TO CLEAR UP ANY WORDS AND TERMS YOU DON’T FULLY UNDERSTAND. JUST TAKE A MOMENT. THESE 4 QUOTES WILL COMPLETELY CHANGE YOUR LIFE WHEN YOU TAKE THE TIME TO REALIZE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CLASSES WHEN THEY SAY “PEOPLE” VERSUS WHEN THEY SAY “PERSONS”

To do a “Brandon’s translation” of the Dred Scott case is extremely easy… here it is:

“When the Constitution was written, there was a Slave Trade Clause built right into it. That class mainly consisted of African negroes. It’s obvious that the negro class that was enslaved had no right to the privileges or immunities of the Constitution. If they did, they wouldn’t be enslaved… this is obvious. Had the Constitution been written later, after negro slavery was gone or abolished, then maybe this would be a different story. But because of the timing on this situation, it is impossible for any African negroes to ever be qualified to be a citizen under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of our US Constitution, which is the section covering the Federal recognition of citizenship of a State of the Union.

As of this writing, only 4 of 31 States currently treat negroes as equals: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont. This is only 13% of the sentiment of the States taken as a collective. So this is not an abstract decision coming only from a majority of the US Supreme Court, but is actually just a spoken sentiment of our entire Republic.

States are allowed to make citizens of whoever they please, but any negroes who are considered citizens of the States from this point forward will not be recognized Federally as such and will also have no protections outside of their home State.”

V. How Did the Dred Scott Case Effect the 5 States Which Previously Allowed Blacks to be Citizens of the State?

Those 5 States are: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina.

In the Dred Scott case, Taney treated State-granted rights and Federal citizenship as distinct. Even if a free black person was a citizen of that State under its constitution or laws, the Court said that person still was not a citizen of the United States (meaning they did not have the Federal protections of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1), could not sue in Federal court on diversity grounds (between citizens of different States), and was not entitled to have other States recognize that status. State voting rules, property rights, and local court access were not automatically repealed, but interstate and Federal protections were.

So Taney didn’t entirely close the route for a negro to be a State citizen, he simply closed Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, which extended the protections of the State citizen to other States and foreign nations.

Let’s break down those 5 States and what happened with them after Dred Scott:

New Hampshire: This State treated blacks as equals before Dred Scott and continued to afterwards as well.

Massachusetts: The legislature openly denounced Dred Scott and openly said blacks were equals.

New York: The $250 freehold requirement set beforehand still prevented most blacks from voting. Nothing really changed after Dred Scott. But they were not considered equals.

New Jersey: They were never treated as equals. They couldn’t vote after 1807 and also could not testify against a white man in court (only other blacks). The State began to deny any blacks that were citizens of other States any Federally protected privileges under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 in the State.

North Carolina: A Constitutional Amendment in 1835 eliminated their ability to vote. They had other difficulties as well. This State was quite pleased with the Dred Scott decision but continued to allow blacks to be considered citizens of the State, but were certainly not considered as equals.

*****

So, essentially, at the end of the day, the only remaining States of the original 13 colonies that truly allowed the blacks to be on equal footing with the whites before and after Dred Scott was Massachusetts and New Hampshire. But those black citizens of those States would have absolutely no protections if they left their State of citizenship after the Dred Scott v. Sandford case.

IMPORTANT NOTE: It should be noted here that there were 31 total States as of the Dred Scott case. Of the remaining 18 States not talked about above, only Vermont and Maine treated the negroes as equals. So, out of 31 total States, only 4 States treated the negroes with equality, which would be 13% of the States. This allows you to have more understanding as to what Roger B. Taney is talking about in the Dred Scott case. Most people just want to write this case off and say “Taney was a racist,” but once you put this all into perspective… the picture becomes much more clear.

Also, it is “common knowledge” that the Dred Scott case was overturned by the 14th Amendment but this is actually false. The 14th Amendment circumvented the Dred Scott case, but did not overturn it. To this day, negroes can be citizens of a State but would have no Federal recognition under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. Dred Scott is still 100% good law, which is quite shocking.

VI. The Civil Rights ACt of 1866 and the 14th Amendment: The Official Birth of the “Citizen of the United States” Class for the Negro

After Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1857), our motion towards the civil war accelerated. It wasn’t the sole reason why we entered the civil war, but it greatly accelerated the motion towards it.

The 13th Amendment, which officially freed the enslaved negroes, was ratified in December of 1865. In retaliation to this, because the 13th Amendment was a Congressional Act, certain southern States passed what are called the “Black Codes” in 1865. These codes made it nearly impossible for the freed negroes to even be there or work or live a decent life. Then Congress retaliated to this and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the solution Congress used to combat the Dred Scott decision as well as to combat the Black Codes of the South.

The courts, the States and Congress were at war over the subject of slavery and the people in the country were swept into it. It was almost like a political war on the heels of the Civil War.

Prior to Mr. Taney’s specific and clear separation of who are “people” from the Preamble and who are “persons,” these terms are mostly interchangeable. Even stretching all the way back to the Law of Nations by Vattel, you see an interchangeable usage between “persons,” “people,” and “peoples.”

Chief Justice Taney had been, by this case, the Chief Justice for 21 years. He and 6 of his 8 associate Justices all voted for the final opinion on this case. Only 2 associate Justices dissented of the 9 total possible votes in this case. So this was strong and positive law, immediately, when the final opinion was published on March 6th, 1857. The case was originally argued in February of 1856, but due to the important nature of the case, it was reargued in December of 1856.

These two terms were the law when the original Civil Rights Act of 1866 was written to protect the negroes. You can see how obvious this is in the opening passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (I will underline and bold key points that your attention should be pointed to):

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

So, it is obvious from the above language that there is a distinct difference being pointed out between “persons” and “white citizens.” The “white citizens” are the citizens that Mr. Taney was talking about in quote #1 above in the Dred Scott case where he is talking about how they are “members of the sovereignty.” These “white citizens” are citizens of their respective States and they are the actual “sovereign citizens” of our nation, as defined by Chief Justice Taney. I thought that the term “sovereign citizen” was a hit-piece term for such a long time but I was wrong: it is a beautiful term that is used to describe the original white citizens of the States and this definition given by Mr. Taney is still active, even to today!

Then, at the 39th Congress, a “Radical Republican” named Thaddeus Stevens introduced the 14th Amendment. The entire reasoning for the Amendment was to attempt to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 something much more difficult to repeal, as seen by these quotes by him:

1. “Some answer, ‘Your civil rights bill secures the same things.’ That is partly true, but a law is repealable by a majority. And I need hardly say that the first time that the South with their copperhead allies obtain the command of Congress it will be repealed. The veto of the President and their votes on the bill are conclusive evidence of that. And yet I am amazed and alarmed at the impatience of certain well-meaning Republicans at the exclusion of the rebel States until the Constitution shall be so amended as to restrain their despotic desires. This amendment once adopted cannot be annulled without two thirds of Congress. That they will hardly get.”

2. “The first section prohibits the States from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or unlawfully depriving them of life, liberty, or property, or of denying to any person within their jurisdiction the ‘equal’ protection of the laws... This amendment supplies that defect, and allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States, so far that the law which operates upon one man shall operate equally upon all.”

You can see from the above quotes what was going on: Mr. Taney and a vast majority of his Supreme Court made a clear line in the sand as to who were people (“white citizens” of a State) and who were persons (negroes unable to be citizens) in the Dred Scott case. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 used that same terminology when it was referring to “persons.” Then that Act became the 14th Amendment. So you can clearly see that the definition of “persons” in the 14th Amendment would be the same one from the Dred Scott v. Sandford case and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The first section of the 14th Amendment reads 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You can clearly see that the 14th Amendment only applied to PERSONS, not to PEOPLE. Which makes perfect sense because the people were already citizens prior to the 14th Amendment under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. The whites were already citizens, it was only the negroes that needed the special citizenship class offered by the 14th Amendment, which is called the “US citizen” class or “citizen of the United States.” Occasionally, you will also see this class referenced in cases as “National citizenship,” “citizens of the Federal government,” etc. We will cover all these variations in this treatise.

Don’t believe me? Here are some exact quotes from the US Supreme Court:

In the case Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), we have the following quotes by the Honorable Justice Owen J. Roberts:

1. After the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, a bill, which became the first Civil Rights Act, was introduced in the 39th Congress, the major purpose of which was to secure to the recently freed negroes all the civil rights secured to white men. This act declared that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, were citizens of the United States, and should have the same rights in every State to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to enjoy the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property to the same extent as white citizens. None other than citizens of the United States were within the provisions of the Act.

2. By reason of doubts as to the power to enact the legislation, and because the policy thereby evidenced might be reversed by a subsequent Congress, there was introduced at the same session an additional amendment to the Constitution which became the Fourteenth.

In Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U.S. 24 (US Supreme Court - 1948), the Honorable Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson says (underline added to bring your attention):

Both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the joint resolution which was later adopted as the Fourteenth Amendment were passed in the first session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress. Frequent references to the Civil Rights Act are to be found in the record of the legislative debates on the adoption of the Amendment. It is clear that, in many significant respects, the statute and the Amendment were expressions of the same general congressional policy. Indeed, as the legislative debates reveal, one of the primary purposes of many members of Congress in supporting the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the guaranties of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the organic law of the land.

So, while it is widely thought that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision, it only overturned the operative aspect of how negroes could not be citizens. The definition of State citizenship for white citizens, given in the #1 quote from Mr. Taney above, still applies even to this day.

The ability for a negro to be recognized Federally as a citizen of a State was shut on March 6th, 1857… and has been shut ever since. The creation of the new citizen class, “citizen of the United States,” was simply a way AROUND the Dred Scott decision… it did not overturn it. A negro could call himself a “State citizen of Vermont” and that would be a valid claim at the State level but would not be recognized in a Federal Court. Which is exactly the same situation as today!

So, even to this very day, there are “people,” who are the “white citizens” of their respective State (for example a “Californian”) and there are “persons” who are “US citizens” or “citizens of the United States.” The 14th Amendment is the birth of this new second class of citizen. Negroes can still be citizens of certain States, if they so please, but would have no protections outside of their home State (at that point, it’s probably better to just operate under the 14th Amendment, instead. Because they would also have no access to the Federal Constitution… only their State Constitution).

VII. The Restructuring of the District of Columbia in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 and the Dictionary Act of 1871: The Blanket Addition of Corporations into the Word “Person” for Acts of Congress

In 1805, the American Hero John Marshall made it clear that the District of Columbia is not a State in the case Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805). This is the exact case they used to justify coming off the standard of using gold and silver coins in accordance with Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution (they said “States can’t use negotiable instruments, but the District of Columbia can because it’s not a State” in the Legal Tender Cases… which I’m not going to get into on this Treatise).

I made the above case linked to the original case opinion text… just like I have for most cases on this Treatise. I highly recommend you go read it because it’s a short case and any time you get a chance to read something from John Marshall you’re in for a real treat. Normally, I know reading opinions can be difficult, but this one specifically is very short and easy to read (and REALLY important). John Marshall is probably the greatest legal mind that we have ever had in America.

The key aspect about Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey that you really need to understand is that the word “State” shifts. If you are speaking about the Republic of sovereign States, the word “State” refers to places like California or Utah. Whereas, in the Federal codes, the word “State” means only the District of Columbia and areas that are under its direct control, which would be US Territories such as Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc (not the 50 States of the Union).

Most people in the sovereignty space believe that the DC Organic Act of 1871 turned the entire government into a corporation… which is not entirely correct. It already was a corporation. A “corporation,” in its most basic sense, is just some kind of lower granting of power given to a group in order to perform a specific task. Constitutionally, the District of Columbia is allowed to incorporate in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. Let’s read it:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…

So the white citizens of the States wrote the US Constitution and, through that instrument, we granted Congress the above. So the “corporation” is essentially put together and granted, secondarily, by us, to allow them to get the above done.

What the Organic Act did is it took 3 distinct separate jurisdictions and combined them. Here are the 3 jurisdictions with a little info about them:

1. City of Washington: Incorporated by Congress in 1802. It received its own municipal government (initially a presidentially appointed mayor and an elected city council; the mayor later became elected). It operated under its own charter with local taxing, law-making, and administrative powers until 1871.

2. Georgetown: Already incorporated earlier, under Maryland law in 1789 (before the federal district was fully organized). It kept its separate municipal charter and government (mayor, aldermen, and council) after the District was created, and that arrangement continued until the 1871 Act revoked it.

3. Washington County: This was the rural remainder of the District outside the two cities. It was not an incorporated municipality. It handled basic county-style functions (roads, taxes, etc.) but did not have the status or powers of a chartered city or town like Washington or Georgetown.

In order to understand all this, we need to clear up what a “municipality” is: A municipality is a local administrative division, such as a city, town, or village, that has corporate status and powers of self-government or jurisdiction granted by national or regional laws.

Now take a wild guess what “granted” these corporations? You guessed it, the US Constitution. And what was the class of people that granted that to them? You guessed it, the white citizens of the States.

States of the Union are not incorporated because they are States… they are the home of the original citizen class. Each State is a kingdom and the white citizens of the State “form the sovereignty” of the State, as we have already covered in the Dred Scott case.

DC being an administrative zone and not being a State of the Union is only allowed to INCORPORATE into a body and the powers of that body are limited by the powers that were delegated to them in the Constitution. This incorporated zone is not directly run by “members of the sovereignty,” but are administered by representatives. Those representatives are the Senate and House of Representatives.

The members of the sovereignty handle and manage their home State… their kingdom… whereas the representatives are given quite a lot of freedom in their own little zone and their job is to manage foreign and diplomatic relations with us. This is how the country is supposed to operate.

So the idea that DC is “incorporated” is exactly correct and exactly how it should be. It being incorporated basically means in English that it is not a sovereign zone and is under some kind of legal restraint. That is exactly correct because that legal constraint is the US Constitution. The 50 various kingdoms in the USA basically have a little club that services and represents the kingdoms on the international plane, as a collective body. We are 50 kingdoms domestically and 1 kingdom internationally. This was the very design by the Founding Fathers and is not evil in nature, I assure you.

This is exactly how the Founding Fathers created the UNITED States: we are all separate as to each other then all one as to international dealings. This is how we became an international super power essentially overnight. This structure we have is the greatest product ever devised by the white man.

But, despite all this, there was actually a tremendously important thing that occurred with the Organic Act and that is the Dictionary Act. And it, unshockingly, has to do with the term “person.”

Prior to the Organic Act and the Dictionary Act, the idea that legal fictions were “persons” was pretty hit or miss. Some justices would allow it, some wouldn’t. You also had very specific Acts such as Bankruptcy Act of 1867 and certain 1868 internal revenue statutes which specifically included corporations in as “persons.” But there was no blanket rule that they were.

That all changed in the Dictionary Act of 1871, which you can still see to this day at 1 USC § 1: the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.

This created a blanket rule that was draped over every single Act of Congress after The Dictionary Act was passed by Congress on February 25, 1871. This is also why you can find it at 1 USC § 1; because it applies to literally every Act of Congress thereafter.

This definition only applied to certain Federal applications and was not really solidified into common Judicial use until Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394 (US Supreme Court - 1886), which we will cover in depth later in this Treatise.

But this was a time where legal fictions being “persons” started to become much more standardized, and for that reason it is very important and is here on this Treatise for that purpose.

VIII. Introducing The Slaughterhouse Cases: The Establishing that the New “Citizen of the United States” Class Had No Right to the Privileges and Immunities Found in the Bill of Rights

As the smoke cleared to the Black Codes, the creation of a new citizenship class under Congress, the Reconstruction of our entire country and even the District of Columbia, the normal citizens of America were attempting to make heads-or-tails of everything that had happened. There was confusion now over the old citizenship class compared to the new one that had been made. There was a series of many cases involving slaughterhouses that all got rolled into one MASSIVE Supreme Court case in order to address and clarify everything that had occurred. This case is, in my opinion, the most important and impactful case that we have ever had in the entire history of our legal system. This case is called The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1873). In these series of cases, which had a singular finale, we have the breaking down and clarifying of how these two very different types of citizenship function in our country. Please carefully read the following quotes where I will, again, use bold words and underlines to bring your attention to specific aspects of the communication from the Honorable Samuel Freeman Miller:

1. The first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more specially invited, opens with a definition of citizenship — not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States, except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens.

2. then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen, were still, not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.

   To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

3. The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. 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.

4. The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.

   It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

5. We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States.

6. Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.

   If, then, there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizen of the State as such the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested; for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment.

7. We repeat, then, in the light of this recapitulation of events, almost too recent to be called history, but which are familiar to us all; and on the most casual examination of the language of these amendments, no one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in them all, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested: we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him. It is true that only the fifteenth amendment, in terms, mentions the negro by speaking of his color and his slavery. But it is just as true that each of the other articles was addressed to the grievances of that race, and designed to remedy them as the fifteenth.

   We do not say that no one else but the negro can share in this protection. Both the language and spirit of these articles are to have their fair and just weight in any question of construction. Undoubtedly while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the Congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie labor system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void. And so if other rights are assailed by the States which properly and necessarily fall within the protection of these articles, that protection will apply, though the party interested may not be of African descent. But what we do say, and what we wish to be understood is, that in any fair and just construction of any section or phrase of these amendments, it is necessary to look to the purpose which we have said was the pervading spirit of them all, the evil which they were designed to remedy, and the process of continued addition to the Constitution, until that purpose was supposed to be accomplished, as far as constitutional law can accomplish it.

You should take your time to read the above quotes over and over as it’s quite a lot to digest. So much, in fact, that almost no one since 1873 has really gotten a clear understanding of these two very different classes. It should be noted that the vote on this case was split - unlike the Dred Scott case, which had a vast majority vote, the Slaughter-House Cases was a 5-4 split and the Chief Justice actually dissented on this vote. So even within the Supreme Court itself, it was tremendously hard to get an agreement on the outcome of this situation.

This is the case that obliterated any possibility that any non-white person would ever have access to the white man’s Constitutional privileges and immunities as well as the Bill of Rights. Don’t believe me? Here are direct quotes from the US Supreme Court and a Federal Court on the subject:

In the case Jones v. Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226 (D. Colo. 1993), the Honorable Lewis T. Babcock says the following:

The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. Accordingly, it is not necessary that plaintiffs have non-resident status in order to bring a claim under the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the case Madden v Commissioner, 309 U.S. 83 (1940), the Honorable Stanley Forman Reed says the following (I underlined a section to show you that the “national citizenship” class did not even know what its own rights were at this time):

This position is that the privileges and immunities clause protects all citizens against abridgement by states of rights of national citizenship, as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship. This Court declared in the Slaughter-House Cases that the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Thirteenth and Fifteenth, were adopted to protect the negroes in their freedom. This almost contemporaneous interpretation extended the benefits of the privileges and immunities clause to other rights which are inherent in national citizenship, but denied it to those which spring from state citizenship. In applying this constitutional principle, this Court has determined that the right to operate an independent slaughter-house, to sell wine on terms of equality with grape growers, and to operate businesses free of state regulation were not privileges and immunities protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. And a state inheritance tax statute which limited exemptions to charitable corporations within the state was held not to infringe any right protected by the privileges and immunities clause. The Court has consistently refused to list completely the rights which are covered by the clause, though it has pointed out the type of rights protected. We think it quite clear that the right to carry out an incident to a trade, business, or calling such as the deposit of money in banks is not a privilege of national citizenship.

Basically, in simple English, the “US citizen” class was a class created under Congress in the District of Columbia in an attempt to protect the negroes from being abused in the States. It is “citizenship of the District of Columbia” and is not a class that exists under the Bill of Rights directly. It is a class that is protected by the District of Columbia, but those protections are under the discretion of the Federal government, not tied to the Bill of Rights directly. The individual sections of the Bill of Rights are cherry-picked by Congress and by the Judicial branch. Congress is able to give or remove the privileges and immunities of Federal citizens via statute and the Judicial branch can give or remove the privileges and immunities of Federal citizens via case opinions called the Incorporation Doctrine. These cases could change or shift at any time, but most of these decisions were made around the end of the 1800s and the middle of the 1900s (but some as late as 2010 and 2019!). We’ll talk more about the Incorporation Doctrine cases later in this Treatise. In simple English: “the Federal government can choose what privileges and immunities they would like to grant to their own special citizenship class and they may change those rules any time they so please and none of their behavior on this subject has absolutely anything to do with the US Constitution.”

Here is an excellent quote that helps paint the picture for you in more “plain English” as I know the Slaughter-House Cases is a lot to take in. This case is ELLEN R. VAN VALKENBURG v. ALBERT BROWN 43 Cal. 43 (California Supreme Court - 1872). Let’s see what the Honorable California Chief Justice William T. Wallace has to say about this situation:

No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The history and aim of the Fourteenth Amendment is well known, and the purpose had in view in its adoption well understood. That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States, who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. These persons were not white persons, but were, in the main, persons of African descent, who had been held in slavery in this country, or, if having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment it was settled that neither slaves, nor those who had been such, nor the descendants of these, though native and free born, were capable of becoming citizens of the United States. (Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393.) The Thirteenth Amendment, though conferring the boon of freedom upon native-born persons of African blood, had yet left them under an insuperable bar as to citizenship; and it was mainly to remedy this condition that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

IX. Slaughterhouse Deep-Dive

Since the Slaughterhouse Cases is literally the absolute core in terms of every aspect of your relationship with the United States, we need to deep dive it on a level that this world has never even imagined. Each and every piece of information that we organize regarding this series of cases will directly relate to our success. The direct Return on Investment (ROI) on this case is higher than any other case in the entire legal system since the dawn of our glorious country.

I typed into Grok a request for a breakdown of the structure and flow of the various cases… I think this will be a great place to start. Here’s what it says (if this is too much info for you, I’ll simplify it right afterwards so just skip it):

“On March 8, 1869, the Louisiana legislature passed “An Act to Protect the Health of the City of New Orleans, to Locate the Stock Landings and Slaughter-Houses, and to Incorporate the Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company.” The act (effective June 1, 1869) gave that company a 25-year exclusive privilege to maintain stock landings and slaughterhouses in the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard and required all animals intended for slaughter in that area to be landed and slaughtered at its facilities. Butchers, livestock dealers, and their associations immediately challenged the monopoly. Contemporary accounts and the Supreme Court’s own statement of the case describe roughly 200–300 suits and cross-suits (some sources say “nearly 300” or “about 250”) filed in the district courts of New Orleans. The earliest documented filing is May 26, 1869: a petition by the Butchers’ Benevolent Association of New Orleans in the Sixth District Court of New Orleans seeking to enjoin the company. The same day the company filed a countersuit in the Fifth District Court. Additional suits (including ones by individual butchers such as Paul Esteben and others, by the Live-Stock Dealers’ and Butchers’ Association, and by the state) were filed in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh District Courts of New Orleans around the same period. Six of these were pressed through to judgment and appeal; five later reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

All of the trial-court litigation occurred in New Orleans district courts. The Louisiana Supreme Court heard the appeals together when submitted in January 28, 1870, then the Appeals Court rendered its verdict on April 11, 1870.

Review was not by ordinary federal appeal. Under §25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, a final judgment of a state’s highest court could be brought to the U.S. Supreme Court by writ of error when the state court had decided a federal constitutional question (here, claims under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments).”

“Brandon’s translation” of the above for simplicity: “A shitload of cases were filed right around New Orleans, Louisiana in 1869 because some new local laws created a monopoly with local slaughterhouses. Some of those cases were then appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1870 (there were no intermediary appeals courts like what we see today). Then, because they couldn’t sort it out in the Louisiana Supreme Court, they went to the US Supreme Court, but they could only get there by way of some Constitutional challenge by way of the FEDERAL Constitution. They chose the newly adopted 13th and 14th Amendments to do so. The US Supreme Court got the case in 1870 then addressed it in argument in 1872 to a deadlock, then reargued it in 1873 to a final opinion. This was the birth of the US Supreme Court case that is still, even to this day, the very core of our entire existence as Americans.”

*****

So let’s continue with this epic tale… by backtracking a little bit into the history of Samuel Freeman Miller, the Associate Justice who gave the final opinion on this case in 1873. You will need his background to understand why he was probably chosen to give this final opinion. I asked Grok to give me a bio on him so let’s take a look at what it says (I’m going to clean up some of the text to simplify it so I don’t need to re-write it afterwards):

Samuel Freeman Miller (April 5, 1816 – October 13, 1890) was an American physician, self-taught lawyer, and Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1862 until his death. He was the first justice from a state west of the Mississippi and one of the most productive members of the Court in the nineteenth century.

He was born in Richmond, Kentucky, the oldest of ten children of farmers Frederick and Patsy Miller. The family was poor. He left Richmond Academy at about age 14 because of money and worked as a pharmacist’s assistant. That work led him toward medicine. In 1836 he enrolled at Transylvania University in Lexington and received a degree in medicine in 1838.

He settled in Barbourville, in southeastern Kentucky, as the town’s first doctor and built a busy rural practice. The work was hard—long rides, heavy medicine bags, and frequent cholera outbreaks in which he felt he lost more patients than he saved—and by the 1840s he was looking for another career. He shared office space with a local lawyer, Silas Woodson, and read law in the evenings after seeing patients. Marriage reinforced the shift: in 1842 he married Lucy Ballinger, whose father, grandfather, and brothers were lawyers. He was admitted to the Kentucky bar in 1847 (some accounts say 1846) and soon left medicine for full-time practice in Barbourville. He also served as a justice of the peace and member of the county court, and he founded the local debating society.

Miller opposed the expansion of slavery and favored a gradual end to it in Kentucky. After the state adopted a more strongly proslavery constitution in 1849, he moved his family in 1850 to the free state of Iowa, settling in the booming river town of Keokuk. He freed the few enslaved people who had come with the household. Keokuk needed lawyers, and within a few years he was one of its leading attorneys, handling divorces, bankruptcies, criminal cases, and a large real-estate practice. He helped organize the Iowa Republican Party, supported Abraham Lincoln in 1860, and became a prominent western Republican. Personal setbacks included the death of Lucy in 1854; he later married Eliza Winter Reeves, the widow of a law partner.

When Justice Peter V. Daniel died and Congress reorganized the circuits so that Iowa fell in a circuit needing a justice, Iowa officials and members of Congress pressed Lincoln to appoint Miller. Lincoln had never met him, but the political support and Miller’s Unionist views were enough. On July 16, 1862, Lincoln nominated him to Daniel’s seat. The Senate confirmed him the same day—within about half an hour of receiving the nomination—and he took the oath on July 21, 1862. He had no prior judicial experience. To prepare, he read through the Court’s decisions since 1789.

He served 28 years, under four chief justices, and wrote more than 600 opinions, a volume later Chief Justice William Rehnquist cited in calling him “very likely the dominant figure” on the Court of his era. During the Civil War he generally backed Lincoln’s measures, including the blockade upheld in the Prize Cases (1863). After the war he wrote the majority opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Court’s first major reading of the Fourteenth Amendment; it narrowly construed the Privileges or Immunities Clause and left most civil rights to the states. He also wrote for the Court in cases such as Bradwell v. Illinois, Ex parte Yarbrough (protecting Black voters from private violence under the Fifteenth Amendment), Wabash v. Illinois (limiting state regulation of interstate railroad rates), and United States v. Kagama. He served on the electoral commission that resolved the disputed 1876 election. When Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase died in 1873, many lawyers favored Miller as successor, but President Grant chose Morrison Waite instead.

Miller suffered a stroke while walking home from the Court on October 10, 1890, and died in Washington on October 13. He was buried in Keokuk, where he had helped found the Unitarian church.

*****

So, as you can see from the above bio, Mr. Miller was quite the force to be reckoned with… a TRUE American. As rugged as the day is long. I personally believe that he was the driving force behind the Slaughterhouse Cases, which is why I wanted to cover his ENTIRE bio. I don’t plan on covering any of the other Justices in such detail.

So let’s continue with our deep-dive here. Let’s make a list of all the Justices that voted on the original arguing of the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1872 and we’ll also add in Ward Hunt (we’ll be talking more about him). Their votes from the original 1872 arguing are not available so I will put their 1873 votes next to their name:

Chief Justice - Salmon P. Chase - DISSENTED
Nathan Clifford - AGREED
Noah H. Swayne - DISSENTED
Samuel F. Miller - AGREED and gave final opinion
David Davis - AGREED
Stephen J. Field - DISSENTED
William Strong - AGREED
Joseph P. Bradley - DISSENTED
Samuel Nelson (“indisposed and not in his seat”) - He retired on November 28, 1872 and was replaced by Ward Hunt on January 9, 1873
Ward Hunt - Was only there for the re-arguing from February 3–5, 1873 then decided April 14, 1873. He was the final approval to break the 4-4 lock

*****

So let’s take some time and look at the dissenting opinions. Normally, dissents are not really all that important besides maybe context, but in a case of this magnitude… every single word matters so much.

The primary dissenting opinion, written by the Honorable Stephen J. Field (which the Chief Justice Mr. Chase joined), was actually really fascinating. I’m going to do a “Brandon’s translation” on his dissent for you:

“This is bullshit. We just went through an entire civil war. We just created an entirely new class of citizenship under the Federal government. Our entire country has been ripped in half and set on fire and here we are… tired, dirty and practically bankrupt. We had to literally come off the silver/gold standard and take over several States by military force over this subject of negro slavery. Over 600,000 American men lost their lives in this war on this subject. And, after all that, this Court wants to make all of it entirely meaningless. This Court is saying that citizenship of the United States, which was the class Congress made specifically for the negroes, has essentially no official Federal recognition of any of the natural rights given by God that are enjoyed by the white race.

As far as I can tell, the entire point of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment was to lift the negro up to the level of a white man. I believe this was the intention of Congress when they did all this and put all this together. Otherwise… what a majority of this Court is saying is that all of that was a complete waste. All the debates… all the legislation… everything. A complete waste. All we have done here is release the negroes from legal slavery into economic slavery because they will now spend the rest of their existence fighting for rights that they will probably never get.”

Here is actually a direct quote from his dissent… check this out:

“The abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude was intended to make everyone born in this country a freeman, and, as such, to give to him the right to pursue the ordinary avocations of life without other restraint than such as affects all others, and to enjoy equally with them the fruits of his labor. A prohibition to him to pursue certain callings, open to others of the same age, condition, and sex, or to reside in places where others are permitted to live, would so far deprive him of the rights of a freeman, and would place him, as respects others, in a condition of servitude. A person allowed to pursue only one trade or calling, and only in one locality of the country, would not be, in the strict sense of the term, in a condition of slavery, but probably none would deny that he would be in a condition of servitude. He certainly would not possess the liberties nor enjoy the privileges of a freeman. The compulsion which would force him to labor even for his own benefit only in one direction, or in one place, would be almost as oppressive and nearly as great an invasion of his liberty as the compulsion which would force him to labor for the benefit or pleasure of another, and would equally constitute an element of servitude.”

*****

Next in this deep-dive, I would like to talk about the new Justice who was the last vote in making the Slaughterhouse Cases a reality, the Honorable Ward Hunt. I find it fascinating that this guy basically walked into a room and was met with 4 men on one side of the room and 4 men on the other side of the room and he was going to be basically the deciding factor in if this thing was going to go through or not. The future of the whole country rested on his shoulders. I think the two most interesting and valuable perspectives in this case are through Samuel Freeman Miller, because he was the driving force in this case and gave the final opinion… and Ward Hunt because the fate of this case rested entirely on his shoulders.

Later in the same year, only 2 months after the publishing of the final opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the most clear, direct and concise quotes regarding State and Federal citizenship were actually made by Mr. Hunt in the infamous Susan B. Anthony case, United States v. Anthony, 24 F. Cas. 829 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1873) (No. 14,459) (June 18, 1873). A video of me breaking down this incredibly important case is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ1OF9yQVwM.

Here are the Earth-shaking quotes that Mr. Hunt gave in this case (I will use bolds and underlines to bring your attention to specific important points):

1. The fourteenth 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 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.

2. After creating and defining citizenship of the United States, the fourteenth amendment provides, that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This clause is intended to be a protection, not to all our rights, but to our rights as citizens of the United States only; that is to rights existing or belonging to that condition or capacity. The expression, citizen of a state, used in the previous paragraph, is carefully omitted here. In article 4. § 2, subd. 1. of the constitution of the United States, it had been already provided, that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” The rights of citizens of the states and of citizens of the United States are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. [83 U. S.] 36, recently decided by the supreme court. The rights of citizens of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.

3. The case of Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. [83 U. S.] 130. decided at the recent term of the supreme court, sustains both of the positions above put forth, viz., first that the rights referred to in the fourteenth amendment are those belonging to a person as a-citizen of the United States and not as a citizen of a state; and second, that a right of the character here involved is not one connected with citizenship of the United States. Mrs. Bradwell made application to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor at law in the courts of Illinois. Her application was denied, and, upon a writ of error, it was held by the supreme court, that, to give jurisdiction under the fourteenth amendment, the claim must be of a right pertaining to citizenship of the United States, and that the claim made by her did not come within that class of cases.

X. More Cases Talking About State versus Federal Citizenship

The very next day after the Slaughter-House Cases, Mr. Miller was handling the confusion caused by all of this in a case called Bradwell v. State, 83 US 130 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1873). Slaughter-House was April 14th, 1873… Bradwell v. State was April 15th, 1873. These quotes are by Mr. Miller, the same Justice who gave the final opinion in Slaughter-House (I will bold one particular section I want to put your attention on):

1. The record in this case is not very perfect, but it may be fairly taken that the plaintiff asserted her right to a license on the grounds, among others, that she was a citizen of the United States, and that having been a citizen of Vermont at one time, she was, in the State of Illinois, entitled to any right granted to citizens of the latter State.

2. As regards the provision of the Constitution that citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, the plaintiff in her affidavit has stated very clearly a case to which it is inapplicable.

   The protection designed by that clause, as has been repeatedly held, has no application to a citizen of the State whose laws are complained of. If the plaintiff was a citizen of the State of Illinois, that provision of the Constitution gave her no protection against its courts or its legislation.

3. The plaintiff seems to have seen this difficulty, and attempts to avoid it by stating that she was born in Vermont.

   While she remained in Vermont that circumstance made her a citizen of that State. But she states, at the same time, that she is a citizen of the United States, and that she is now, and has been for many years past, a resident of Chicago, in the State of Illinois.

4. We do not here mean to say that there may not be a temporary residence in one State, with intent to return to another, which will not create citizenship in the former. But the plaintiff states nothing to take her case out of the definition of citizenship of a State as defined by the first section of the fourteenth amendment.

5. In regard to that amendment counsel for the plaintiff in this court truly says that there are certain privileges and immunities which belong to a citizen of the United States as such; otherwise it would be nonsense for the fourteenth amendment to prohibit a State from abridging them, and he proceeds to argue that admission to the bar of a State of a person who possesses the requisite learning and character is one of those which a State may not deny.

The bolded section above is so critical because it is directly connected to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1… which is the citizenship clause for white citizens of the States and is the original citizenship of the United States of America. Let’s do a “Brandon’s translation” for you so that you can fully understand what Mr. Miller was saying to Miss Bradwell in this case:

“The State is YOUR government. YOU are the government of your State if you are a citizen of that State. The Federal government has no ability to come into your State and force control over the laws that YOUR class made. You are a “member of the sovereignty” of your State, to quote Mr. Taney in the Dred Scott decision. You FORM the sovereign political body of your State. Just because you are a woman and may not have the power to directly change the laws of your State due to men pretty much controlling that entire process does not mean that you can create a backdoor with the Federal government to come in and force compliance by a State of the Union. You are white and you are a citizen of your State so, in the eyes of the law, you do still form the sovereignty of your State regardless of your inability to be involved in the legislative processes due to your gender. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 allows the Federal government to ensure that each white citizen of the States is treated with Constitutional privileges and immunities when HE/SHE IS OUTSIDE OF HIS STATE AND IN ANOTHER STATE OF THE UNION OR IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, not for the Federal government to INVADE a State in order to gain compliance over its own citizens. Any legal issues in YOUR State is addressed by YOU handling your own sovereign body. The Federal government is not your daddy and not going to come in and clean up messes by the white citizens of their own State. That’s ridiculous.”

When you read the Law of Nations by Vattel, this begins to take more shape because you learn that rights and obligations are tied together. So, due to the fact that white citizens of a State do not have any rights under the 14th Amendment, they also do not have any obligations… such as driver’s licenses, taxes, etc. These are all obligations tied only and directly to the 14th Amendment citizenship class, not to the State citizenship class.

In order to fully understand the incredible weight of the above quotes from Bradwell v. State, we should review the definitions of “domicile” versus “residence/resident”:

Domicile:

1. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. Kurilla v. Roth, 132 N.J.L. 213, 38 A.2d 862, 864; In re Stabile, 348 Pa. 587, 36 A.2d 451, 458; Shreveport Long Leaf Lumber Co. v. Wilson, D.C. La., 38 F. Supp. 629, 631, 632. Not for a mere special or temporary purse, but with the present intention of making a permanent home, for an unlimited or indefinite period. In re Garneau, 127 F. 677, 62 C.C.A. 403; In re Gilbert's Estate, 15 A.2d 111, 117, 118, 18 N.J. Misc. 540; In re Schultz' Estate, 316 Ill. App. 540, 45 N.E.2d 577, 582. Davis v. Davis, Ohio App., 57 N.E.2d 703, 704.

2. "Domicile" and "residence," however, are frequently distinguished, in that domicile is the home, the fixed place of habitation; while residence is a transient place of dwelling. Fisher v. Jordan, C.C.A.Tex., 116 F.2d 183, 186; Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 149 So. 483, 488; Hartzler v. Radeka, 265 Mich. 451, 251 N.W. 554.

Resident/residence:

1. Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizens of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children. Vattel, Law of Nations Chapter 19

2. As "domicile" and "residence" are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. In re Riley's Will, 266 N.Y.S. 209, 148 Misc. 588.

3. "Residence" demands less intimate local ties than "domicile," but "domicile" allows absence for indefinite period if intent to return remains. Immigration Act 1917, § 3, 8 U.S.C.A. § 136 (e, p). Transatlantica Italiana v. Elting, C.C.A.N.Y., 74 F.2d, 732, 733. But see, Ward v. Ward, 115 W.Va. 429, 176 S.E. 708, 709; Southwestern Greyhound Lines v. Craig, 182 Okl. 610, 80 P.2d 221, 224; holding that residence and domicile are synonymous terms. "Residence" has a meaning dependent on context and purpose of statute. In re Jones, 341 Pa. 329, 19 A.2d 280, 282.Words "residence" and "domicile"- may have an identical or variable meaning depending on subject-matter and context of statute. Kemp v. Kemp, 16 N.Y.S.2d 26, 34, 172 Misc. 738.

So we can see by the above quotes in Bradwell v. State that people are already confused about this whole “US citizen” thing. In this case we have an original State of domicile, another State of residence and this lady ALSO saying she’s a US citizen and has rights under the 14th Amendment. Quite confusing. But you see the Honorable Mr. Miller SHUT THAT SHIT DOWN and let her know that she has no rights to the 14th Amendment as a State citizen. It’s quite clear and quite simple.

In 1876, we have one of the most well-known cases in our entire history, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (U.S. Supreme Court 1876). This one had a pretty even split down the middle of a 5-4 vote, with our boy Mr. Miller in agreement with the decision. This case involved a massacre where an armed white militia killed MANY black freemen at a courthouse. The black freedmen were protesting the 1872 election of the governor of Louisiana by occupying the courthouse. When reading this, keep in mind that legal fictions were not added in as “persons” under the 14th Amendment until 1886, which we will obviously cover in detail later in this Treatise. This opinion was written by the Chief Justice of that time, Mr. Morrison Remick "Mott" Waite. Let’s get into some quotes (I’ll underline and bold one important part that I would like you to see):

1. We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 74.

2. The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society.

In 1901 we have the case Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244 (U.S. Supreme Court 1901), which indirectly describes these two distinct citizenship classes perfectly. The Honorable Justice Henry Billings Brown says the following:

we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.

Here is the first part of the Veto Message (on 3/27/1866) by President Andrew Johnson regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (I recommend you read this entire message):

I regret that the bill, which has passed both Houses of Congress, entitled "An act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindication," contains provisions which I can not approve consistently with my sense of duty to the whole people and my obligations to the Constitution of the United States. I am therefore constrained to return it to the Senate, the House in which it originated, with my objections to its becoming a law.

By the first section of the bill all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, people of color. Negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of these races born in the United States is by the bill made a citizen of the United States. It does not purport to declare or confer any other right of citizenship than Federal citizenship. It does not purport to give these classes of persons any status as citizens of States, except that which may result from their status as citizens of the United States. The power to confer the right of State citizenship is just as exclusively with the several States as the power to confer the right of Federal citizenship is with Congress.”

This quote was said in United States v. Otherson, 637 F. 2d 1276 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1980 by the Honorable Harry Pregerson (the Court was investigating the intent behind the Enforcement Act of 1870):

Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 2d Sess. 1536 (1870). The Senator further explained: "The civil rights bill had several other things applying to citizens of the United States. This simply extends to foreigners, not citizens, the protection of our laws where the State laws deny them the equal civil rights enumerated in the first section." Id.

Finally, we note that appellants' interpretation would hamper achievement of the statute's purpose. Senator Stewart's remarks reveal that the 1870 Act was intended to safeguard the legal rights of aliens present in this country.

In the case Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (U.S. Supreme Court 1869), the Honorable Stephen Johnson Field said the following proving that a corporation is not able to be a citizen of a State:

It was contended that the statute in this particular was in conflict with that clause of the Constitution which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," and the clause which declares that Congress shall have power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States." The same grounds are urged in this Court for the reversal of the judgment.

The answer which readily occurs to the objection founded upon the first clause consists in the fact that corporations are not citizens within its meaning. The term citizens as there used applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic, owing allegiance to the State, not to artificial persons created by the legislature, and possessing only the attributes which the legislature has prescribed.

The State citizen category is still alive and well when reviewing Federal jurisdiction statutes. Let’s take a look at 28 USC § 1332, which is typically referred to as “Diversity Jurisdiction”:

(a)The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—

(1)citizens of different States;

The final thing we should cover in this section is that the term “United States citizen” was in usage before its official legal birth in the Civil Rights Act of 1866/14th Amendment, so what did it mean prior to 1866? That was beautifully answered by Justice Solomon Heydenfeldt in the case Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 301-307 (1855):

1. in examining the form of our government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage, arising from convenience and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy, has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union is held to be and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.

2. The States had the power to naturalize foreigners, and there was no necessity for this power to be surrendered to the General Government.

3. Hence the necessity arose, not that Congress should have power to naturalize, but should have power to prescribe to the States a rule to be carried out by them, and which should be uniform in each. If this were not so, it follows conclusively that there is no mode by which a foreigner can be made expressly a citizen of a State, for I have already shown there is no such thing, technically, as a citizen of the United States. Consequently, one who is created a citizen of the United States is certainly not made a citizen of any particular State. It follows, that as it is only the citizens of the State who are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, if the process is left alone to the action of Congress through her federal tribunals, and in the form which they have adopted, then a distinction both in name and privileges is made to exist between citizens of the United States ex vi termini [by definition], and citizens of the respective States. To the former no privileges or immunities are granted; and it will hardly be contended that political status can be derived by implication against express legal enactments.

XI. The expanding of the Term “persons” Under the 14th Amendment to include artificial fictions

In 1873, due to the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1873), the delineating point between who was “persons” and who were “people” was simply the distinction between a white man/woman and a non-white man/woman (it was mainly white/black until the Slaughter-House Cases, then it became more white/non-white). It’s that simple (let’s not sugar-coat this).

As we have already previously covered, the Dictionary Act of 1871 added legal fictions in as “persons” in Acts of Congress. It wasn’t until one specific case when this definition of “person” from the Dictionary Act began to expand and become more “commonly acceptable,” which I will speak about now.

This case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394 (US Supreme Court - 1886). This case clearly expanded the 14th Amendment’s definition of “persons” (meaning negroes). Here is the exact quote from that case that caused that to occur:

One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that “corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Before argument, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said:

“The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.”

This is where the Supreme Court began the expansion of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DEFINITION OF “PERSON” (WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH “FREE WHITE PEOPLE” OF STATE CITIZENSHIP).

This definition and expansion of meaning ONLY applies to the 14th Amendment. Not to State citizenship or “men/women of the Union” (meaning white people who were actual State citizens). THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHITE PEOPLE/STATE CITIZENS. THE ORIGINAL TEN AMENDMENTS WERE FOR US… THIS IS THE “BILL OF RIGHTS.” THAT WAS FOR US (WHITE PEOPLE), WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS SPECIFICALLY MADE FOR THE NEGROES. THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS THE BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE NEGROES.

I want to take a moment and diffuse emotional outburst. We are looking at active laws that may be considered “ancient” from our perspective. We need to understand the situation and laws first prior to our ability to change or shape them… that is all I am attempting by this. I am a lowly researcher. The decisions of the American “people” or “persons” must come, first, from a place of understanding then, ultimately, from independent thought and action. I am not a Lord in these discussions… I am simply the messenger attempting to translate the words of the various HONORABLE JUSTICES and the legal terminology. I am simply attempting to be a “legalese translator,” which has never really existed prior to this blip in time… but I attempt to be no Lord over these words. I want to successfully translate these things in order to create change in our culture.

WHEN YOU ACTUALLY TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE WORDS OF THESE HONORABLE JUSTICES YOU QUICKLY REALIZE THAT THEY WERE NOT RACIST PIECES OF SHIT. THEY WERE SIMPLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AND NAVIGATE A DIFFICULT SITUATION THE BEST THEY COULD. IF ANYTHING, THEY WERE PUTTING THEIR LIFE ON THE LINE BY EVEN SPEAKING A WORD TRYING TO PROTECT THE NEGROES OR GIVE THEM ANY KIND OF FREEDOM! THE CIVIL WAR HAD JUST ENDED AND ONE WRONG WORD IN THESE CASES HAD THE POSSIBILITY OF CATAPULTING US BACK INTO THE WAR! THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT THE WORDS OF THESE HONORABLE JUSTICES. I SAY “HONORABLE” BECAUSE THEY WERE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEIR WORDS WERE LOST IN TRANSLATION AND NO ONE READS THEIR ORIGINAL COMMUNICATIONS ANYMORE. STOP USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, STOP LISTENING TO THE MEDIA, STOP LISTENING TO YOUR FRIENDS… AND TAKE THE TIME TO CAREFULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE HONORABLE JUSTICES WERE TRYING TO TELL YOU. THEY ARE TELLING YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO ACHIEVE YOUR FREEDOM, I ASSURE YOU. MR. MILLER, MR. TANEY, MR. WALLACE AND A VAST MAJORITY OF ALL THE HONORABLE JUSTICES IN OUR PAST WERE BRILLIANT MEN. IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND THEIR WORDS, YOU WILL SEE THAT.

XII. FULL TIMELINE BREAKDOWN OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION - Concise Eagle-Eye View in Order of Time

Due to the sheer volume of all of the above information, let’s do a concise timeline of all of the items above so that we can see the full picture at a glance. The reason why I structured everything above is due to the difficulty of reading the various quotes and sort of their importance. For example, the quote from Mr. Solomon Heydenfeldt in Ex Parte Knowles is something that could have been put at the top of this Treatise, but that was done specifically because his quotes are a little harder to read than the others. But now that we have run through everything in terms of importance and clarity of context, let’s now re-organize everything above in a timeline so that you can see it all with more clarity. I’m also going to add a bunch of other important things on this timeline to really attempt to paint a huge American picture for your mind:

1. Year and location of the first 13 English Colonies in America: 1607: Jamestown, Virginia, 1620: Plymouth, Massachusetts, 1623–1636: New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, 1632–1634: Maryland and Pennsylvania, 1664: New York, New Jersey, and Delaware, 1663–1670: North and South Carolina, 1732: Georgia.

2. These colonies declared independence in 1776 and were formally recognized as the United States of America by the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Citizenship was established under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 and was exclusively citizenship of a State of the Union (which was originally the above listed 13 colonies).

3. First Naturalization Act defining citizenship by way of naturalization (meaning: born elsewhere and you come here to be a citizen) as only possible for a “free white person” in 1790. Final version of the Naturalization Act passed in 1802.

4. The Honorable John Marshall makes it clear that the District of Columbia is not a “State” as per the Constitutional definition in Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805).

5. The Honorable California Associate Supreme Court Justice Solomon Heydenfeldt made it abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” and there is only a citizen of a State in Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 301-307 (1855).

6. Roger B. Taney and his US Supreme Court makes it clear that negroes, even after being released from slavery, may not be a citizen of a State under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (March 6th, 1857). This case still permitted States to allow negroes to be citizens of their State, but it obliterated all Federal recognition… which destroyed the ability for the negro to enjoy his State citizenship outside of his State. THIS IS WHERE THE DEFINITIONS OF “PEOPLE” AND “PERSONS” WERE RE-DEFINED AND CLARIFIED, WHICH CAUSED MASSIVE CONFUSION BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY TEXTS PRIOR TO MARCH 6TH 1857 USING THESE TERMS INTERCHANGABLY. ANY USAGE OF THE TERM “PERSONS” AFTER THIS CASE IS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO THE NEGRO CLASS.

7. Civil War Begins April 12, 1861.

8. Roger B. Taney dies October 12, 1864 and was replaced as Chief Justice by Salmon P. Chase (who voted in Slaughterhouse).

9. Civil War ends April 9, 1865.

10. Black Codes passed by Mississippi on Nov 25th, 1865 to pre-emptively attack the upcoming 13th Amendment and get around it by making the negroes criminals (which would bypass the 13th Amendment and allow them to be re-enslaved).

11. 13th Amendment was adopted, freeing the enslaved negroes (“persons”), on December 6, 1865.

12. The following States follow Mississippi in creating their own versions of the Black Codes in Dec 1865 into early 1866 to combat the 13th Amendment and attempt to bypass it: South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee and, finally, Arkansas.

13. Congress, on January 5, 1866, presents the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in an attempt to help the negroes (“persons”) against these Black Codes. THIS IS THE VERY FIRST TIME YOU SEE CONGRESS TAKE THIS PREVIOUSLY LEGALLY MEANINGLESS TERM, “citizen of the United States,” AND TURN IT INTO AN ACTUAL SEPARATE LEGAL FEDERAL CITIZENSHIP CLASS FOR THE NEGROES (“persons”).

14. President Andrew Johnson vetoes the Civil Rights Act of 1866 on March 27th 1866.

15. Congress overrides President Johnson’s veto on April 9th, 1866 - which is the exact day it went into legal effect. This allowed the negroes (“persons”) to remove cases from State court (where they had no protection and no citizenship) to Federal court to gain protections under this Act.

16. The 14th Amendment was officially added in as a Constitutional Amendment on July 9, 1868. This gave more footing to the released negroes (“persons”) as they were previously trying to fit everything into the 13th Amendment in Constitutional court proceedings. The 14th Amendment solidified Federal protection for the negroes (“persons”), as well as allowed them to now structure causes of action in Federal court under both the 13th and 14th Amendments. THIS AMENDMENT WAS MADE BECAUSE CONGRESS WAS WORRIED ABOUT HOW LEGAL ITS NEW “citizen of the United States” CLASS WAS FOR THE NEGROES, AS DESCRIBED IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866. THEY WERE ALSO WORRIED THAT IT WOULD BE REPEALED IF THERE WAS A SHIFT IN POWER IN CONGRESS. THIS AMENDMENT SOLIDIFIED THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, MAKING IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO REPEAL.

17. Corporations were denied to be citizens of a State under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869). State citizenship was only available for a “natural person” (meaning a man or woman).

18. Reconstruction Act of 1870 and Civil Rights Act of 1871 were both done to fully incorporate the new 14th Amendment into everything that was done before it (such as the Civil Rights Act of 1866).

19. The Dictionary Act of 1871 was passed on February 25, 1871, which added legal fictions, such as corporations, into the definition of “person” for all future acts of Congress. This had limited application until Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394 in 1886.

20. On Jan 15th, 1872, we have a California Supreme Court case called Ellen R. Van Valkenburg v. Albert Brown 43 Cal. 43. This case clearly and directly says that white people have absolutely nothing to do with the 13th, 14th or 15th Amendments. Here is the exact quote from the Chief Justice at the time, the Honorable William T. Wallace: “No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.”

21. Slaughterhouse Cases deadlock in 1872 due to a 4-4 vote (Justice Samuel Nelson was absent), then case is re-argued and finalized when Ward Hunt entered the court in 1873. Final opinion published April 14th, 1873, which utterly obliterated the idea that the new “citizen of the United States” class for the negroes (“persons”) had access to the privileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights.

22. The next day after Slaughterhouse Cases, April 15th 1873, Mr. Miller gives more information on the differences between State and Federal citizenship in Bradwell v. State, 83 US 130. In this case, he explains that the negro class (“citizen of the United States”) is the only class which has Federal protections against State laws and that white citizens of their respective States may not use the 14th Amendment in their State.

23. Two months after Slaughterhouse Cases, on June 18, 1873, Ward Hunt drops absolute BOMBSHELLS regarding the differences between State and Federal citizenship in the infamous Susan B. Anthony case: United States v. Anthony, 24 F. Cas. 829 (C.C.N.D.N.Y.).

24. The first challenge brought to the US Supreme Court on if an aspect of the Bill of Rights for white citizens is applicable to the negro class (“persons”) under the 14th Amendment in the case Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516 (1884). The question was if the negro class (“persons”) has a right to a grand jury under the 5th Amendment. It was found that they do not and that they can be charged by way of “information” (which means charged basically by just a statement. A traffic ticket is a charging instrument by way of information).

25. Ward Hunt dies March 24, 1886 after a long period of very bad health and body paralysis after a bad stroke in January of 1879.

26. Corporations added in as “persons” under the 14th Amendment on May 10th, 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394.

27. Samuel Freeman Miller dies of a stroke on October 13, 1890.

28. A small piece of the 5th Amendment, the protection against taking property without due compensation, was given to the negro (and now also including corporations) class under the 14th Amendment in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897). This marks the very first point of the Bill of Rights that was granted to the negro/corporation class. This is the first time you see incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the negro/corporation class in function, but the theory of how incorporation works was not really described until Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78 (1908).

29. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78 (1908) is the first time we have a clear and transparent explanation of “selective incorporation” and how the Judicial branch may incorporate certain parts of the Bill of Rights into their own citizenship class (the Federal citizen/US citizen/citizen of the United States/citizen of the Federal government/14th Amendment citizen/Congressional citizen/National citizen/negro citizen - whatever you want to call it). While this case denied incorporation of the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, it paved the way and established the Judicial theory as to how incorporation could be done. The exact explanation from the case is as follows: “it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226. If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.”

30. From here on forward is the various Incorporation Doctrine cases which incorporated, piece by piece, some aspects of the Bill of Rights for the negro/corporation class under the 14th Amendment. It follows the theory laid out by Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78. I will cover the entire Incorporation Doctrine later in this Treatise.

31. Here are the dates after Twining v. New Jersey of each and every Incorporation Doctrine case (we will talk about the Incorporation Doctrine more later in this Treatise, but I want you to just see the timeline here): 1925, 1931, 1932, 1937, 1940, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1961, 1962, 1963 (two cases in 1963), 1964, 1965, 1967 (two cases in 1967), 1968, 1969, 2010, 2019, 2020. I would also like to bring to your attention that Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 was a case in 1954 that started the civil rights explosion of the 1950s/1960s, which shows you why there was so much activity on the subject of selective incorporation between 1947-1969 (the building up to that case then the aftermath).

32. On August 20, 1968, we have a District case in the US territory of Puerto Rico called United States v. Valentine, 288 F. Supp. 957. In this case, the Chief Justice of that Court Hiram Rafael Cancio explains clearly what the only actual right is of the Federal citizenship class has after Slaughterhouse Cases: “The only absolute and unqualified right of citizenship is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States; a citizen cannot be either deported or denied reentry.” This is exactly correct. Then from that point, as citizens of the Federal government, they then gain privileges and immunities from Congress via legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, plus they also gain privileges and immunities from the Judicial branch via the Incorporation Doctrine cases. Congress and the Judiciary are essentially the parents of the negro/corporation class and those parents tell the negro/corporation class what their privileges and immunities are (and they could change at any point, for the better or for the worse). The negro/corporation class has no direct link to the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights because the only way to make that link is through Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 (The State citizenship clause) of the US Constitution, which is only available for white citizens ever since the Dred Scott case in 1857.

I hope the above timeline helps you see the whole picture. It should give more clarity as it organizes much of the information we have covered so far, as well as some information we will be covering a little later in this Treatise. You are more than welcome to use this timeline in any cases you may be working on, as it gives the Judge in your case a very clear and concise timeline which can fit on a few pages of your filings.

If you sit down and physically sketch out this timeline on a a piece of paper or maybe several pieces of paper taped together, it will probably be one of the most impactful things you have ever done in your life. It will also help you to remember the information. One of the secrets of learning information is by altering it and contributing to it. So by you, with your own hands (not using AI), manually drawing all this information you would actually be doing yourself the biggest favor and would be utterly re-shaping the future of your life.

XIII. So How Does the Federal Citizenship Work After Legal Fictions Were Added in as “Persons”?

Let’s review some of the current definitions of the words:

In Title 8 of the United States Code, “person” is defined in 8 USC § 1101(b)(3) as:

The term “person” means an individual or an organization.

The term “individual” is not specifically defined and thus defaults to the dictionary definition. Here is the one from Black’s 4th:

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. State v. Bell Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am.Rep. 583

As you can see, the definition above allows it to also “include artificial persons.”

Then, finally, we have the term “organization” from the Title 8 definition of “person,” which is defined at 8 USC § 1101(a)(28):

The term “organization” means, but is not limited to, an organization, corporation, company, partnership, association, trust, foundation or fund; and includes a group of persons, whether or not incorporated, permanently or temporarily associated together with joint action on any subject or subjects.

So you can see from the above that you could actually open up businesses or trusts and go get passports for them because they are, technically, “persons” that are US citizens. This is a backdoor into becoming a citizen of the United States without having to naturalize. In order to fully understand this, we need to clear up the definition of “birth” from a legal dictionary:

The act of being born or wholly brought into separate existence. Wallace v. State, 10 Tex. App. 270.

With that above definition in mind, let’s take a look at the actual legal section that everyone in America believes applies to them, which is 8 USC § 1401:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

This is where things can become really confusing because you have two very different terms that really trip people up: “United States,” and “continental United States.” The term “United States” typically just means “the District of Columbia and any other US Territories and does not include the States of the Union.” Then the term “continental United States” means BOTH the US Territories AND the States of the Union. So this can be extra tricky.

In Title 8, here is the definition of “United States” at 8 USC § 1101(a)(38):

(38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

So, in English, this means “unless we otherwise specify, this term includes the States and the Territories.” They specifically name the various Territories and you can tell that when they wrote this definition both Alaska and Hawaii had not become States yet. This is all very confusing so take some time to really understand all this because it’s really important.

So let’s re-write the above section from 8 USC § 1401 in English to better understand it:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) an individual (non-white man/woman if in a State) or organization being brought wholly into separate existence in any State or Territory, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Now, the part about the above that is so shocking is that all “organizations” that come into their own existence would technically be “US citizens.” You can see this in 15 USC § 4724(e)(1):

(1) the term “United States business” means
(A) a United States citizen;
(B) a corporation, partnership, or other association created under the laws of the United States or of any State (including the District of Columbia or any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States); or
(C) a foreign corporation, partnership, or other association, more than 95 percent of which is owned by persons described in subparagraphs (A) and (B)

So, what this means in English is basically “any organization at all created in the United States is a ‘person’ and is a ‘US citizen.’ Any foreign ‘person’ owned by one of these ‘persons’ is also under our jurisdiction.”

The most fascinating and shocking application of this is actually on the States. For example State of California is listed on Dun and Bradstreet as a business and has an EIN number. “State of California” is an “organization” which is a “person” and experienced “birth” in the “continental United States.” So that means that “State of California” is technically a US citizen (artificial persons are not allowed to be citizens of a State as we have already covered in Paul v. Virginia). This is exactly how our original Republic was destroyed… it was flipped from the States having all the power to the District of Columbia having all the power. The “States” pretend they have the 9th and 10th Amendment while we don’t, which is the polar opposite of the actual truth of the matter: in fact WE (white citizens of the State) are the actual State and have the 9th and 10th Amendments where “State of California” is a US citizen under the 14th Amendment, has no right to be a citizen of a State and also has no right to the 9th or 10th Amendments. How could a corporation which isn’t even allowed to be a citizen of the State be considered the government of the State? THAT’S INSANE.

*****

So, let’s take an example of all this and let’s put it into action. Let’s go into the California Vehicle Code and attempt to find out who or what exactly the code applies to (we know right away that it does not apply to white citizens of the States because we have the 9th Amendment). This is the code all about cars, speed limits, tickets, etc. Let’s start with the definition of a “resident” from section 516 of the code:

“Resident” means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.

Now, obviously we see the word “person” in there so we need that definition to have this make any sense. We can get this definition from section 470:

“Person” includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.

So, obviously the definition of the word person means, in English: “any man, woman, child or legal fiction with rights and obligations under the 14th Amendment.” The way you know this is because legal fictions such as corporations were entered in as “persons” under the 14th Amendment but were never allowed to be part of “We the People” as State citizens. You can also tell because legal fictions have no right to the 9th and 10th Amendments, which would override the entire Vehicle Code making it inapplicable.

So in order to understand who the California Vehicle Code applies to, we need to combine these definitions, which I will do here:

“Resident” means any man, woman, child or legal fiction with rights and obligations under the 14th Amendment who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.

Ok, now it’s starting to make more sense. Now, there is a list of items in section 516 which describe evidence that a “person” can use, if they so please, to willingly and voluntarily register their vehicle with the State. Let’s look at that list here:

The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration:

(a) Address where registered to vote.

(b) Location of employment or place of business.

(c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.

(d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.

(e) Filing a homeowner’s property tax exemption.

(f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.

(g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident.

(h) Possession of a California driver’s license.

(i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient.

So, what they are saying is that the above points are valid evidence that you are a “resident” (meaning FOREIGNER) in order to get vehicle registration. So, it goes without saying, if you didn’t have any of the above points then you would not be able to register your car… which is exactly correct. In that situation, you would be a nonresident and you would operate, in California, under the California Vehicle Code section 6700, which allows nonresidents to operate in the State without registration because they are physically incapable of getting registration if they are not a resident. So the idea that you MUST have a driver’s license or vehicle registration to operate on the roadways is ONLY true if you are a resident but is not true (and factually impossible) for nonresidents.

In essence, you believe that being a “resident” means you live there… when, in actuality, it means “someone living here who is not a citizen of this State.” So by getting vehicle registration you are essentially admitting that you are not a real American but are only a visitor of some kind, your allegiance and citizenship lies elsewhere. By reverse-engineering this list, you can give yourself an excellent and simple program on how to break this presumption of residency, because a resident is a foreigner and not a citizen of the State.

So, to put all this in English, you are probably a State citizen with your own business, which is a US citizen, called a sole proprietorship. This business is a resident in a State but how does a legal fiction, which has no physical body or location, get located in a State?

Well, the answer for that is found at 8 USC § 1101(a)(23):

The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

Let’s replace the word “person” with the definition for more clarity:

The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon an individual or organization after birth, by any means whatsoever.

Bingo! That makes perfect sense. So basically a corporation is a resident in a State because people say so! Not even kidding. I know that sounds ridiculous but that’s literally how it works. If you or anyone else says that your corporation or any other corporation is a resident in a State then VOILA, it is. It’s magic!

This is very easy to understand if you take just a moment: a corporation, trust, entity, association, partnership, etc is all just IDEAS. They have no physical mass. They have no atoms, no molecules. So they can’t actually be placed anywhere in the physical universe. You can’t touch, smell, hear or otherwise experience them. They are ideas only and, as such, only ideas can “locate” them. It’s quite insane, really, when you think about it.

Once you understand this then you understand that you are able to move any legal fiction wherever you want and whenever you want. And this is a very powerful piece of information. This is essentially how the citizenship system works in America.

So let’s say I was a French citizen and I wanted to move to America. No problem, I would just create a corporation called BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS, I would get an EIN number for it from the IRS, then I would say (meaning “naturalize”) this brand new citizen into California. VIOLA, I’m now a resident of California without having to do any of the tests or even the 5 year residency period! Magic! You wouldn’t be able to do this with State citizenship though… this trick only works for US citizenship. The reason why is because legal fictions cannot be State citizens (Paul v. Virginia).

So every time you say “you” live someplace like California, in law they are presuming that you are referring to your sole proprietorship (your business). This is why your name is typically always spelled in all caps and this is why you are considered a “resident” on everything. Only none of it is referring to you, it’s referring to your business. If you look on a W9 tax form, you are considered the “owner” of the sole proprietorship.

XIV. The Magna Carta: Individual Sovereignty Compared to Collective Sovereignty

We need to stop for a minute and go on a bit of a very important detour in order to fully understand the main difference between State and Federal US citizenship.

We have two big hints about this in both Dred Scott v. Sandford and Slaughter-house, one by Mr. Taney and another by Mr. Miller.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, Mr. Taney says:

The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the “sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty

Then in Slaughter-House, Mr. Miller says:

The people of this country brought with them to its shores the rights of Englishmen; the rights which had been wrested from English sovereigns at various periods of the nation's history. One of these fundamental rights was expressed in these words, found in Magna Charta: “No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his freehold or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him or condemn him but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

I have never looked into the Magna Carta because it is something that is mentioned on so many “sovereign citizen” hit-piece articles that I wasn’t sure it was relevant. But seeing SO MANY Justices speaking about it at the Supreme Court in the 1800s, I began to look at it more closely because I realized that it must be quite important for it to be talked about so much.

To see this for yourself, simply go to Google Scholar, click the case law bubble, check only the appeals and Supreme Court decisions for your zone, then type either “Magna Carta” or “Magna Charta.” Some Justices spell it as the “Magna Carta,” and sometimes they spell it as the “Magna Charta.” So please be mindful when searching for cases regarding it. Click this link to be taken right to the Supreme Court search results for “Magna Carta”: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=4%2C60&q=magna+carta&btnG=

The Magna Carta is what extended the powers of the King into the people and is the same basic structure of each of the individual States of the Union in America. You could think of each of the 50 States as “independent little Englands that operate under the Magna Carta, in essence” and it would be a great starting place to understand the differences between the States and the Territories (“Territories” meaning the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands). Those Territories operate under an entirely different system.

So what I wanted to speak about here is what Mr. Taney is talking about when he is talking about how the citizens “form the sovereignty” and how that relates to individual sovereignty. This is a huge misunderstanding in this world of teaching information as regards to sovereignty.

This sovereignty is COLLECTIVE, primarily, then INDIVIDUAL secondarily. What I mean by that is that it’s a sovereignty that is held by the group… and what I mean by “group” is the State. So, for example, a “political body” (to quote Mr. Taney) of sovereignty would be California, then the “constituent members” (to quote Mr. Taney) of that sovereignty would be white Californians (State citizens). US citizens are not a part of any of this and do not comprise any of the 50 political bodies of sovereignty in the United States of America.

This is exactly how the grand jury indictment system works: you have 23 or so members of this collective sovereignty all pressing judgement on another member of that political body. BUT YOU NEED TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS POLITICAL BODY IN ORDER TO ACCESS THAT COLLECTIVE SOVEREIGNTY. This is where most sovereignty “gurus,” including myself, have really been off the rails.

Individual sovereignty is possible as someone who is neither a State citizen or US citizen… they would be considered stateless. But they do not have the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution like you may believe because they are not parties to it. Just like how the negroes were not originally parties to it, people who are not State citizens also are not party to it. This is exactly where the term “resident alien” came from… this term means “persons who are not members of the sovereignty and are here in our zone as immigrants or guests.”

You could almost go so far as to say the term “people” is defined as “white men and women who are parties to the Constitution by being citizens of their respect State of the Union,” then you could define “persons” as “non-white men/women and legal fictions that are not at all or only partially parties to the Constitution, due to them either only being guests or not qualifying for State citizenship.” This would be an excellent delineation.

The problem we face is that very few people are members of the political bodies that comprise the sovereignty. Anyone identifying as a US citizen would not be a member of this sovereignty. So the term “sovereign citizen” sort of gains an entirely new look through this lens: a “sovereign citizen” is simply a member of this sovereign body and they help to compose the body of sovereignty that operates under the same basic functionality as the Magna Carta. Then, by being a functional and contributing member of that sovereignty, COLLECTIVELY, you then have access to tremendous PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL sovereignty.

This is an important distinction and has been one of the primary areas that we, as researchers and litigants, have fallen down badly. The “you can’t catch me because I’m not a citizen and not in your jurisdiction” mentality is the main point of failure in all our groups. We need to properly re-group the 50 POLITICAL BODIES that form collective sovereignties (each of the 50 independent nation States) and we need to to assist one another to re-form those political bodies and then operate those political bodies in relationship with the District of Columbia. We need to clean up DC as well because it’s essentially a runaway train that has been hijacked by the insane.

I recommend you research more on this subject and search around and find more quotes regarding Honorable Justices speaking about the Magna Carta because that appears to be the spinal cord of the functionality of State citizenship.

XV. An expansive view into the term “negro”

People use the term “African American” and other terms in an attempt to be “kind,” but what no one realizes is that the term “African American” basically enslaves anyone who accepts it. Mostly white people do this, let’s be honest.

Let’s take some time to carefully break down the exact and specific term of “negro,” as used by the Honorable Justice Miller and others.

Here is the legal definitions of the term “negro” from Black’s Law 4th Edition:

1. The word “negro” means a black man, one descended from the African race, and does not commonly include a mulatto. Felix v. State, 18 Ala. 720. But the laws of the different states are not uniform in this respect, some including in the description “negro” one who has one-eighth or more of African blood.

2. Term “Negro” means necessarily person of color, but not every person of color is “negro.” Rice v. Gong Lum, 139 Miss. 760, 104 So. 105, 109

Now let’s, right away, get into the legal definition of a “mulatto” to ensure clarification (from Black’s 4th):

1. A person that is the offspring of a negress by a white man, or of a white woman by a negro. Thurman v. State, 18 Ala. 276. In a more general sense, a person of mixed Caucasian and negro blood, or Indian and negro blood. Webster, Dict. See, also, Mustizo.

2. Properly a mulatto is a person one of whose parents is wholly black and the other wholly white; but the word does not always, though perhaps it does generally, require so exactly even a mixture of blood, nor is its signification alike in all the states. 1 Bish.Mar. & D. § 308

Some other terms we should clear up are “African descent,” “black,” “color” and “colored”:

1. AFRICAN DESCENT - Persons of African nativity or of “African descent” within the meaning of the Naturalization Act, as amended by Act July 14, 1870 (8 U.S.C.A. § 703 note), are members of the negro races of Africa or their descendants by intermixture with races constituting free white persons, the negro races referred to being those from which the emancipated slaves in the United States descend. Ex parte Shahid, D.C.S.C., 205 F. 812, 815.

2. COLOR - The word also means the dark color of the skin showing the presence of negro blood; and hence it is equivalent to African descent or parentage. Johnson v. Board of Education of Wilson County, 166 N.C. 468, 82 S.E. 832, 834, L.R.A.1915A, 828.

3. COLORED (three definitions):
   a. By common usage in America, this term, in such phrases as “colored persons,” “the colored race,” “colored men,” and the like, is used to designate negroes or persons of the African race, including all persons of mixed blood descended from negro ancestry. Collins v. Oklahoma State Hospital, 76 Okl. 229, 184 P. 946, 949, 7 A.L.R. 895; Theophanis v. Theophanis, 244 Ky. 689, 51 S.W.2d 957.

   b. But where a state Constitution provided for separate schools for the white and colored races, the term “white race” was held to be limited to the Caucasian race, and the term “colored races” to embrace all other races. Rice v. Gong Lum, 139 Miss. 760, 104 So. 105, 107.

   c. It has also been held that there is no legal technical signification to the phrase “colored person” which the courts are bound judicially to know. Pauska v. Daus, 31 Tex. 74.

4. BLACK (several definitions from various areas of the Code of Federal Regulations):
   a. 10 CFR § 1040.3 - “Black, not of Hispanic origin. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.”
   b. 12 CFR § 1282.1 - “Black or African American—a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa”
   c. 18 CFR § 1302.4 - “Black, not of Hispanic origin. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa”
   d. 28 CFR § 42.402 - “Black, not of Hispanic Origin. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.”
   e. 29 CFR § 30.2 - “Black or African American—A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.”
   f. 32 CFR § 191.3 - “Black (not of Hispanic origin). A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.”
   g. 40 CFR § Part 7 Subpart A - “Black and not of Hispanic origin. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.”
   h. 43 CFR § 34.3 - “Black, all persons having origins in any of the Black African racial groups not of Hispanic origin”

As you can see from the above definitions, almost every single term you could possibly use has some pitfall of being made to mean African in nature, but it began to become so vague that it began, in some places, to mean literally every race that is not white. That is why this subject is so confusing because even terms like “colored” or “black” could mean of African descent… which would make you a US citizen and not a State citizen or Indian.

It may be interesting to you how someone was determined, in the courts, to be a “free white person” or “negro.” They did not have DNA testing back then. I typed this into Grok and got quite an interesting answer, which you can see here: https://x.com/i/grok/share/gLO5uHxH22qTOe5Ykct9do5u8

So, this entire nightmare is essentially born out of this “enslavement of the Africans” mentality that America has had since its very inception.

XVI. The definition of the term “individual”

At this point would be a good point to backtrack to the definition of “individual.”

Let’s look at the various definitions we can find.

1 USC § 8 is entitled: “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant, and says the following:

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Sure does sound like a whole shitload of words for something that should be simple, right? Yeah, well… this is the game. You think “oh well, an individual is so simple… it’s me.” Yeah… it’s not.

Your umbilical cord and placenta, according to the above definition of “live birth,” were both independent live births. So let me ask you… who is on your birth certificate? Is it your body? Is it your umbilical cord? Is it your placenta? ARE YOU EVEN YOUR BODY OR ARE YOU JUST A CONSCIOUSNESS THAT CAN BE SEPARATED FROM A PHYSICAL BODY? Could it be something else entirely? You ASSUME it’s you on the birth certificate but that would be unconstitutional in itself. So the question becomes WHO are they referring to!?

If these words were really that simple then THEY WOULD BE THAT SIMPLE IN DEFINITION. The fact that they are not is evidence there is more here.

Let’s look at more definitions of “individual”:

In 5 USC § 552a(2), “individual” is defined as:

the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence

We’ve already established that a “US citizen” is a released slave of African descent (or other non-white) and that someone with a “residence” is an immigrant/foreigner. So let’s re-write this definition in English:

the term “individual” means a negro (or other non-white) or legal fiction lawfully admitted to stay here as an immigrant/foreigner

Bingo! That would be 100% correct!

So let’s plug that same idea into the definition of the term “person” from the tax code, which is: The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

Let’s re-write that now with the above info:

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include a negro (or other non-white), a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

Bingo, now we got it! I also personally believe that “individual” is typically referring to a sole proprietorship. So personally I would say that the word “individual” leans to mean more of a sole proprietorship whereas a “natural person” would lean more towards a negro (or other non-white)… but you get the idea.

Mr. Miller actually explains how something like the sole proprietorship even exists in The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1873). If all roads lead to Rome, Slaughter-House would truly be Rome, itself. Here is what Mr. Miller has to say:

That wherever a legislature has the right to accomplish a certain result, and that result is best attained by means of a corporation, it has the right to create such a corporation, and to endow it with the powers necessary to effect the desired and lawful purpose, seems hardly to admit of debate. The proposition is ably discussed and affirmed in the case of McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, in relation to the power of Congress to organize the Bank of the United States to aid in the fiscal operations of the government.

If I had to go even a step farther with all this in mind, I would personally define “person” as:

The term “person” shall be construed to include any man, woman, child or legal fiction with rights and obligations under the 14th Amendment

A negro was never considered part of the “people.” They were considered property. This is how we wound up with this crazy situation. Now, everyone is essentially considered property under the Federal government and Congress (BECAUSE WE TELL THEM SO!)… the State citizen category has essentially been quietly wiped away.

Essentially, everyone has become negroes without anyone realizing it. This is what happened to our country.

*****

So let’s use Grok on X. On 4/7/25, I typed into Grok: how many times, in Title 8 of the United States Code, is the term "individual" used together with the word "alien"?

Here is part of the answer it gave me:

Estimation: "Alien" appears hundreds of times in Title 8, and "individual" likely pairs with it in 50–100 instances, based on procedural and definitional sections."

Now, that would make perfect sense in many ways because a business that is created under the United States, which is only and explicitly the District of Columbia (4 USC § 71), would always be an immigrant, as a person, in each of the 50 States of the Union.

A negro would also always be an immigrant or foreigner in any of the 50 States of the Union. They never had the right to be a State citizen and can only be “US citizens,” which is under the Federal/National government, which would be the District of Columbia. They are essentially citizens of the District of Columbia.

So… as far as I’m concerned… THIS FULLY CLARIFIES THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD “PERSON” IN A NEW WAY THAT NO ONE HAS EVER DISCOVERED.

You could almost go so far as to define an “individual” or “person” to be: a negro (or other non-white) or legal fiction that was born/created in the District of Columbia or subjects itself to the District of Columbia and would be an immigrant/foreigner/guest (meaning “resident”) in any of the 50 states of the Union.

This is exactly why you can never find a definition of “individual.” Everything is carefully and explicitly defined… except this word. Because they don’t want you to know and there’s no way to define it without giving up the scam!

P.S. - Another important thing to keep in mind is that you become a “ward of the court” whenever you take on an attorney-at-law as a “client.” You can learn more about this on the W&W Questions and Answers page. A “ward of court” is “an infant or person of unsound mind.” This is another way you become an “individual” as a white man!

XVII. The Incorporation Doctrine

The Cornell Law page where I will be pulling most the information for this section can be found at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

Throughout the years later after Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1873), we have what is called the “Incorporation Doctrine.” This is essentially where they were trying to build back in all the original rights that were for white State citizens back into the US citizen category. Cornell Law describes it like this:

The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which parts of the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Prior to the doctrine's (and the Fourteenth Amendment's) existence, the Supreme Court found the Bill of Rights to only apply to the Federal government and to federal court cases. During the signing of the Constitution, every state in the negotiation had different levels of concerns with a too powerful Federal government, and the preamble to the Bill of Rights highlights the importance of the Bill of Rights in limiting overreach by the newly created government. The Supreme Court noted that the Bill of Rights was clearly intended to limit only the federal government (see Barron v City of Baltimore (1833)). States and state courts could choose to adopt similar laws, but were under no obligation to do so.

After the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court, through a string of cases, found that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth amendment included applying parts of the Bill of Rights to States (referred to as incorporation). A lot of contention surrounds whether the Fourteenth Amendment should incorporate any substantive rights, with opinions from Supreme Court justices ranging from complete to no incorporation. Rather than find that the Due Process clause incorporates all of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court supported selectively incorporating rights that the Court finds as essential to due process. Under selective incorporation, the Supreme Court incorporated certain parts of certain amendments, rather than incorporating an entire amendment at once.

Some argue that the Privileges or Immunities Clause is a more appropriate textual basis than the due process clause for incorporation of the Bill of Rights but because Slaughter-House Cases dealing with this clause are surrounded by controversy this theory is not supported by the majority of the court.

As a note, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment have not been incorporated, and it is unlikely that they ever will be. The text of the Tenth Amendment directly interacts with state law, and the Supreme Court rarely relies upon the Ninth Amendment when deciding cases.

As you can see, the above is a clear and excellent description of what this is.

Here is a copy and paste breakdown of each of the originally ten rights that the white man had, and their corresponding cases which “incorporated” (or deemed them unable to be incorporated) the original State citizen rights into the privileges and immunities available for the negroes in the Fourteenth Amendment. The 9th and 10th Amendments were never “incorporated,” so only eight remain:

First Amendment (fully incorporated)

1. Guarantee against the establishment of religion: Everson v Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

2. Free Exercise of Religion: Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 U.S. 245 (1934), Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)

3. Freedom of Speech: Gitlow v. New York 268 U.S. 652 (1925)

4. Freedom of the Press: Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931)

5. Right of Assembly and Petition: DeJonge v. Oregon 299 U.S. 353 (1937)

6. Freedom of expressive association: Even though not directly mentioned in the Amendment, See Roberts v. United States Jaycees 468 U.S. 609 (1984) where the court states that “implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment is a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious and cultural ends.”

Second Amendment (fully incorporated)

1. ​Right to keep and bear arms: McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)​

Third Amendment (not incorporated)

Fourth Amendment (fully incorporated)

1. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

2. Requirements in a warrant: Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964)

Fifth Amendment (partially incorporated)

1. Right to indictment by a grand jury (not incorporated): Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516 (1884)

2. Double Jeopardy: Benton v. Maryland, 395 US 784 (1969)

3. Right against Self-Incrimination: Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1 (1964)

4. Protection against taking property without due compensation: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)

Sixth Amendment (partially incorporated)

1. Right to a Speedy Trial: Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967)

2. Right to a Public Trial: In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948)

3. Right to an Impartial Jury: Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966)

4. Right to notice of accusations: In re Oliver 333, U.S. 257 (1948)

5. Right to Confront Hostile Witnesses: Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965)

6. Right to compulsory process to obtain witness testimony: Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967)

7. Right to Confront Favorable Witnesses: Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967)

8. Right to Counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

9. Right to jury selected from residents of the state and district where the crime occurred (not incorporated)

Seventh Amendment (not incorporated)

Eighth Amendment (fully incorporated)

1. Protection against excessive bail: Schilb v Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (1971) - THIS ONE IS A BIT CONTESTED. TYPE IT INTO AI IF YOU WANT TO LEARN WHY… I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO IT HERE

2. Protection against excessive fine: Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)

3. Protection against cruel and unusual punishments: Robinson v California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).

*****

There is also another case I wanted to show you that describes many of these rights being converted into privileges and then added in on the US citizen side of the equation, Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1908). This case was later overturned by Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1964), but this case is still wildly important because it breaks down a historical timeline of all the various cases and things that happened up to 1908 involving all this information about the differences between US citizens and State citizens:

[this quote is talking about what rights US citizens have versus State citizens. Some of this information is outdated and should be compared to the above Incorporation Doctrine cases for reference]

Let’s hear what the Honorable Justice William Henry Moody has to say in this case (notice he calls it “National citizenship”):

Thus among the rights and privileges of National citizenship recognized by this court are the right to pass freely from State to State, Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35; the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances, United States v. Cruikshank, supra; the right to vote for National officers, Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58; the right to enter the public lands, United States v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76; the right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshal, Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263; and the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws, In re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532 … The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the Sixth Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258.

*****

So this is, essentially, the world we have been living in: we are all self-proclaimed “persons” (negroes) under the Fourteenth Amendment and these various rights have been incorporated into the 14th Amendment… but there’s a problem. We all are pretty aware about how the world ACTUALLY works and it is often where these various “incorporated” “rights” don’t work like you would think they should. Well, that’s quite simple and the Honorable Justice Taney already told us why previously in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1857). Again, I will use bold and underlines to bring your attention to specific areas in this quote:

The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

So, as you can see above, these “incorporated rights” are not really rights… they are exactly what they say they are: PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

The Bill of Rights is essentially a gift that is being given to US citizens from Congress and it has nothing at all to do with the Constitution. Meaning, Congress doesn’t need to give THEIR citizenship class any of the Bill of Rights if they don’t want to. Their citizens do not have a right to the Bill of Rights… it is a privilege. A privilege given by Congress.

Here is the definition of “privilege”: “a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.”

This was made crystal clear in a case from 1968, United States v. Valentine, 288 F. Supp. 957 (Dist. Court, D. Puerto Rico - 1968), where the Honorable Chief Judge Hiram Rafael Cancio said:

The only absolute and unqualified right of citizenship is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States; a citizen cannot be either deported or denied reentry.

Bingo. That is exactly correct. US citizens, meaning negroes, have only one RIGHT. They have many optional privileges and immunities, but only ONE SINGLE GUARANTEED RIGHT. NO OTHERS!

So, if you have yourself classified as a “US citizen” or a “resident” or “permanent resident” of a State, the information in this section carefully breaks down your situation. This may shed quite a bit of light as to why this country is the way it is! I imagine now it’s starting to make a lot of sense! The question that the government is essentially asking you all the time is: are you a negro? - and you are saying yes! And what’s so shocking is that no one on either side of that question actually understand the question! EVERYONE IS IGNORANT. WE ARE IN AN UNTHINKING NIGHTMARE.

A “permanent resident” is simply someone who “has their citizenship (meaning allegiance and subjugation) elsewhere and has decided to stay here in a foreign land without becoming a State citizen.” You can see this defined in 8 USC § 1101(a)(20):

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.

As a “resident,” your citizenship is not defined in that term… it is simply known that your citizenship is not in that area. It is simply assumed by the term that your allegiance and subjugation lies elsewhere! A negro can NEVER complete the naturalization process due to him not being a free white person so he can ONLY become a PERMANENT RESIDENT of a State or of the United States.

What’s amazing is literally all of this chaos and insanity was caused due to one single misunderstood word… the word “persons” in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Too wild to even be believed!

XVIII. Using anything derived from the 14th Amendment automatically makes you a negro

So, what makes this so complex is that, in court, the basic fundamental equation for almost anything going on is like this:

Duty-Breach-Damages

In law, this is called a “cause of action.” A cause of action is essentially the basic breakdown of a specific claim on a complaint.

For example, a cause of action for “breach of contract” would be:

1. They had a duty to perform based off a contractual obligation (the contract is then attached to the claim or complaint as evidence as an exhibit)

2. Someone breached that claim (ideally with attached evidence proving the alleged breach)

3. Damage occurred due to this breach (with attached evidence/affidavits proving the damages that resulted)

This, in essence, is the composure of a cause of action (and then 1 or more causes of action comprise a complaint). It’s really quite simple.

Now here’s the issue…

If you use anything as a cause of action which comes from the 14th Amendment, you are, in essence, classifying yourself as a negro by doing so.

I’ll give you an excellent example. Let’s take a look at 42 U.S. Code Chapter 21, entitled “CIVIL RIGHTS” (“rights” are for the whites and “civil rights” are for the negroes)

You can see how obvious this situation is in 42 USC § 1981(a) (I will use an underline to show you the key parts):

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

And in 42 USC § 1982 we see the following wording (where, again, I will underline to bring your attention to a couple areas):

All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

Now all this is HIGHLY important because two of the most common statutes used in civil cases when their rights are violated (for example: against police misbehavior) are 42 USC § 1983 and 42 USC § 1985, WHICH ARE RIGHT AFTER THE ABOVE 42 USC § 1981 AND 42 USC § 1982.

So everyone bringing claims or causes of actions under 42 USC § 1983 or 42 USC § 1985 are using the negro’s civil rights code. So thus… obviously the presumption will be that you MUST be a negro. This is the issue.

Now, keep in mind that the government did give you a sole proprietorship… which is simply just your name in all caps. That is the “persons” that actually is a 14th Amendment US citizen. You can prove that easily because when you look up who can get a Social Security Number in 20 CFR § 422.104, you will see that you need to be a US citizen (negro or legal fiction) in order to have one.

So you HAVE a US citizen, called a sole proprietorship, which is under the 14th Amendment. And this is exactly how you can bring a claim under 42 USC § 1983 or 42 USC § 1985. But you as a free white man/State citizen/actual American absolutely may not do so! So how would you navigate something like that? Easy, just make your sole proprietorship, as a person, the plaintiff in the lawsuit and you become the attorney-in-fact or “next friend” on behalf of that person. In this way, you can still bring your claims without committing a felony by saying you are a negro when you are not (which can put you in prison up to 3 years according to 18 USC § 911).

If you prefer to actually bring a claim yourself, without some kind of persona or corporate fiction, as a white State citizen, I would recommend that you use your original State’s constitution in State court or use the original Bill of Rights in Federal court. Besides that, with anything else, you would need to check it to see if it is derived from the 14th Amendment.

Newsflash: almost every area of “law” is derived from the 14th Amendment!

IF YOU SEE THE TERM “PERSONS” ANYWHERE (AND IT’S FUCKING EVERYWHERE), THEN YOU IMMIDIATELY KNOW YOU ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING DERIVED FROM THE 14TH AMENDMENT (SPEAKING ABOUT NEGROES AND CORPORATE FICTIONS, EXCLUSIVELY)

XIX. Qualified Immunity and the True Source of Systemic Racism in America

PREFACE TO THIS SECTION: I TRULY BELIEVE THAT ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE POLICE FORCE ARE INTRINSICALLY PERSONS OF ILL INTENT (LEGALLY, POLICE OFFICERS ARE “PERSONS,” NOT “PEOPLE” BY THE WAY. I’M NOT JUST SAYING THAT… THAT’S AN ACTUAL LEGAL FACT). BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE OVERALL POLICING SYSTEM IS CURRENTLY OPERATING IN A WAY THAT NEEDS SOME SERIOUS ADJUSTMENT. WE JUST NEED TO TWEAK THE SYSTEM AND ALL THE POLICE OFFICERS WILL ADJUST TO THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS ADJUSTED. SO THE POLICE ARE NOT THE ENEMY… IT’S SIMPLY THE CALIBRATION OF THE SYSTEM ITSELF. I’M ALSO NOT EXCUSING POLICE BRUTALITY… BUT THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND HERE THAT NEEDS TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED.

Ok so let’s talk about “qualified immunity.”

First let’s get a definition and start this section off with an article from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) that I think is a great starting place (https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/qualified-immunity):

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state and local officials, including law enforcement officers, from individual liability unless the official violated a clearly established constitutional right.

The evolution of qualified immunity began in 1871 when Congress adopted 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which makes government employees and officials personally liable for money damages if they violate a person’s federal constitutional rights. State and local police officers may be sued under § 1983. Until the 1960s, few § 1983 lawsuits were successfully brought. In 1967, the Supreme Court recognized qualified immunity as a defense to § 1983 claims. In 1982, the Supreme Court adopted the current test for the doctrine. Qualified immunity is generally available if the law a government official violated isn’t “clearly established.”

Now, at this point in this conversation, you already know where I’m headed with this… this only applies to men, women, children and legal fictions which has rights and obligations under the 14th Amendment.

If you already saw that coming, great. It means you’re learning (thank Christ). Now, this gets more interesting because we can see this even more clearly by actually diving into the cases associated with this situation. Let’s take a peek, shall we?

I’m not much of an AI guy but I’ve recently been using Grok to find cases to dig into on specific subjects. I typed into Grok “what main court cases established qualified immunity for the police?” and this is what it gave me:

Pierson v. Ray (1967): This was the first case to recognize qualified immunity as a defense for public officials, including police officers. The Court held that officers could be shielded from liability for constitutional violations if they acted in good faith and without clear knowledge that their actions were unlawful.

Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982): This case refined the doctrine by establishing an objective standard for qualified immunity. The Court ruled that officials are immune unless their conduct violates "clearly established" constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known, removing the subjective "good faith" requirement.

Anderson v. Creighton (1987): This case further clarified that for a right to be "clearly established," prior court decisions must have defined the right with sufficient specificity. It protected officers unless their actions were clearly prohibited by existing precedent.

Saucier v. Katz (2001): The Court formalized a two-step test for qualified immunity: (1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. (This rigid sequence was later made flexible in Pearson v. Callahan (2009).)

Mullenix v. Luna (2015): This case emphasized the high bar for overcoming qualified immunity, reinforcing that a right must be defined with particularity, not at a general level, to be considered "clearly established."

Now, at this point, most of you dumb fucks would start asking Grok more questions and to summarize these cases for you and all other manner of worthless pathetic bullshit. This is how we got into this situation in the first place. OBVIOUSLY NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS SHIT ABOUT ANY OF THIS OTHERWISE WE WOULDN’T HAVE THE FUCKED UP SITUATION WE HAVE. So don’t be a worthless jackoff… use AI to locate cases then ACTUALLY TAKE THE TIME TO GO READ THEM… DON’T ASK AI, WHICH IS AN AMALGAMATION OF OTHER PEOPLE/PERSONS MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND RETARDATIONS, WHAT THESE CASES SAY.

Let’s head over to Google Scholar and look up the case of Pierson v. Ray, 386 US 547 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1967), light up a cigar, and take a look at what quotes we can dig out of this thing:

These cases present issues involving the liability of local police officers and judges under § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, now 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Petitioners in No. 79 were members of a group of 15 white and Negro Episcopal clergymen who attempted to use segregated facilities at an interstate bus terminal in Jackson. Mississippi, in 1961.

More “exciting” quotes from this case:

The evidence at the federal trial showed that petitioners and other Negro and white Episcopal clergymen undertook a "prayer pilgrimage" in 1961 from New Orleans to Detroit. The purpose of the pilgrimage was to visit church institutions and other places in the North and South to promote racial equality and integration, and, finally, to report to a church convention in Detroit. Letters from the leader of the group to its members indicate that the clergymen intended from the beginning to go to Jackson and attempt to use segregated facilities at the bus terminal there, and that they fully expected to be arrested for doing so. The group made plans based on the assumption that they would be arrested if they attempted peacefully to exercise their right as interstate travelers to use the waiting rooms and other facilities at the bus terminal, and the letters discussed arrangements for bail and other matters relevant to arrests.

Pretty wild to be reading this knowing that this is still the basis of modern “qualified immunity,” isn’t it?

Let’s keep going on this case. I want you to see how absolutely fucking insane the world you live in really is… look at this next quote:

The ministers stayed one night in Jackson, and went to the bus terminal the next morning to depart for Chattanooga, Tennessee. They entered the waiting room, disobeying a sign at the entrance that announced "White Waiting Room Only—By Order of the Police Department." They then turned to enter the small terminal restaurant but were stopped by two Jackson police officers, respondents Griffith and Nichols, who had been awaiting their arrival and who ordered them to "move on." The ministers replied that they wanted to eat, and refused to move on. Respondent Ray, then a police captain and now the deputy chief of police, arrived a few minutes later. The ministers were placed under arrest and taken to the jail.

Pretty wild that this was all entirely peaceful and still resulted in the nightmare we currently live in.

But let’s keep going…

All witnesses including the police officers agreed that the ministers entered the waiting room peacefully and engaged in no boisterous or objectionable conduct while in the "White Only" area. There was conflicting testimony on the number of bystanders present and their behavior. Petitioners testified that there was no crowd at the station, that no one followed them into the waiting room, and that no one uttered threatening words or made threatening gestures. The police testified that some 25 to 30 persons followed the ministers into the terminal, that persons in the crowd were in a very dissatisfied and ugly mood, and that they were mumbling and making unspecified threatening gestures. The police did not describe any specific threatening incidents, and testified that they took no action against any persons in the crowd who were threatening violence because they "had determined that the ministers was the cause of the violence if any might occur,” although the ministers were concededly orderly and polite and the police did not claim that it was beyond their power to control the allegedly disorderly crowd. The arrests and convictions were followed by this lawsuit.

Do I even need to say anything? Obviously not… let’s continue:

We find no difficulty in agreeing with the Court of Appeals that Judge Spencer is immune from liability for damages for his role in these convictions. The record is barren of any proof or specific allegation that Judge Spencer played any role in these arrests and convictions other than to adjudge petitioners guilty when their cases came before his court. Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine, in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872). This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences." (Scott v. Stansfield, L. R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 349, note, at 350.) It is a judge's duty to decide all cases within his jurisdiction that are brought before him, including controversial cases that arouse the most intense feelings in the litigants. His errors may be corrected on appeal, but he should not have to fear that unsatisfied litigants may hound him with litigation charging malice or corruption. Imposing such a burden on judges would contribute not to principled and fearless decision-making but to intimidation.

Ok, fine. I could see that point of view. But don’t you think there should be a little more of a discussion as regards to what is considered acceptable and what is not rather than just a blanket immunity to treat negroes and “persons” however they want? (again, none of this has anything to do with white State citizens… even if they didn’t realize that at the time. Makes no difference).

Let’s keep going on this case:

The common law has never granted police officers an absolute and unqualified immunity, and the officers in this case do not claim that they are entitled to one. Their claim is rather that they should not be liable if they acted in good faith and with probable cause in making an arrest under a statute that they believed to be valid. Under the prevailing view in this country a peace officer who arrests someone with probable cause is not liable for false arrest simply because the innocence of the suspect is later proved. Restatement, Second, Torts § 121 (1965); 1 Harper & James, The Law of Torts § 3.18, at 277-278 (1956); Ward v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 179 F. 2d 327 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1950). A policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he has probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does. Although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, the same consideration would seem to require excusing him from liability for acting under a statute that he reasonably believed to be valid but that was later held unconstitutional, on its face or as applied.

Ok I get this concern, but none of this is applicable in 2025. Totally irrelevant. Do you think all the people in a place would scoff and be upset over white and black ministers using the “whites only” bathroom in 2025? That was a joke because that situation isn’t even possible in 2025.

I’m not going to keep banging this case or the subsequent cases… but you can see that the original cause of action was under the negroes civil rights act (42 USC § 1983). So all of this stuff that happened because of that makes perfect sense. They have absolutely no legal obligation to respect the privileges and immunities of negroes.

We’ve gone through a majority of that first case… and now you can kind of see how my mind works and how I build my various cases. You can read these other cases then now build a claim or defense based on that information and file it in. Doing this stuff is actually really interesting and fascinating and I wanted to kind of write this section as a little teaser to kind of show you how this can work and how it can be an interesting discovery. It empowers you because you realize, pretty rapidly, that things like qualified immunity is complete horse shit. But you have to actually attack it in the proper way.

As you can see, this is the true systemic racism in our country. This whole page could be called “systemic racism in America” and it would be exactly correct!

XX. America: The World’s Negro Plantation

You need to be a US citizen (negro) to be president.

You need to be a US citizen (negro) to serve on a jury.

You need to be a US citizen (negro) to be governor of a State (which immediately proves that it’s not the actual State, but simply a Federal corporation called the “State of _________” - a US citizen is ABSOLUTELY not able to be the governor of the ACTUAL State and what makes it even more complex is that the State itself is a US citizen! A Californian would be the only person able to be governor of California, a Texan would be the only one able to be the governor of Texas, etc.) So it’s literally US citizens (negroes) running a US citizen (corporation). I hope you’re laughing at how absurd this is at this point.

A “US citizen” is someone (individual or organization) who has pledged their allegiance to and have subjected themselves to the District of Columbia (which is not one of the States of America). How could a citizen of the District of Columbia be governor of a sovereign State like California? THAT’S INSANE! It’s 14th Amendment citizenship for released negroes after the 13th Amendment released them from slavery (I know I’ve said it a million times but I keep saying it so it can have some time to sink in).

Are you seeing the big picture here? This is literal evidence that “State of California” is not a part of the actual State… it is simply a public corporation on behalf of the District of Columbia (a US citizen). State of California has a fucking EIN number: 94-6001347. It’s literally just a business on behalf of the District of Columbia and everyone who works for it, on paper, are blacks of African descent. “The people of State of California” is impossible… it can only be “the PERSONS of State of California.”

State of California never replaced the actual California (same for all the other States). This is obvious by the fact that you need to be a US citizen to be governor of State of California. So that means the entire original de jure government is just sitting there… empty. And, for example, the 1849 California Constitution is the original Republican center of the original American State. California, meaning the political body which comprises the sovereignty, has a Constitution from 1849 that has never been expressly cancelled or replaced! Even AI (shockingly) will tell you that.

So America is literally one giant cotton plantation for negroes. Everyone is black and of African descent on paper. The whole country operates as though it was released from slavery from the 13th Amendment and given citizenship through the 14th Amendment. This whole country operates as though America began in 1868… not in 1776. This isn’t even a joke or something funny or cute… this is literal and not a joke at all. I hope you can see this. It’s quite shocking and eye-opening. It’s honestly really sad.

XXI. Two classes of citizen: two distinct constitutions

There are so many articles online in this law space talking about how one Constitution is “OF” the United States and the other is “FOR” the United States… some people even say that the “second” Constitution is invisible. This is all silly and this situation is quite simple to figure out. First, we need to start with the legal definition of “Constitution”:

The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which may be written or unwritten, establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers. A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed. Fairhope Single Tax Corporation v. Melville, 193 Ala. 289, 69 So. 466, 470. See, also, Browne v. City of New York, 213 App. Div. 206, 211 N.Y.S. 306

So, as we can see, a constitution is basically the contract or set of rules for a nation or state. Since we have two entirely different classes of citizenship, we obviously have two separate Constitutions… but what are they?

Let’s return to the most important case that has ever occurred since the dawn of our country, Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1873), and hear from Mr. Miller with more quotes that clean this all up for us (my notes will not be in bold and will be in brackets):

In the light of the history of these amendments [13th, 14th and 15th], and the pervading purpose of them, which we have already discussed, it is not difficult to give a meaning to this clause [referring to the first section of the 14th Amendment]. The existence of laws in the States where the newly emancipated negroes resided, which discriminated with gross injustice and hardship against them as a class, was the evil to be remedied by this clause, and by it such laws are forbidden.

If, however, the States did not conform their laws to its requirements, then by the fifth section of the article of amendment [referring to the 14th Amendment] Congress was authorized to enforce it by suitable legislation. We doubt very much whether any action of a State not directed by way of discrimination against the negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision. It is so clearly a provision for that race and that emergency, that a strong case would be necessary for its application to any other. But as it is a State that is to be dealt with, and not alone the validity of its laws, we may safely leave that matter until Congress shall have exercised its power, or some case of State oppression, by denial of equal justice in its courts, shall have claimed a decision at our hands. We find no such case in the one before us, and do not deem it necessary to go over the argument again, as it may have relation to this particular clause of the amendment.

So we can see here that Mr. Miller is going into even more depth showing that the US citizen category was created as a separate class and placed under Federal care so that the released negroes, as foreigners in a State, are not going to be discriminated against by the States.

So, in this respect, we need to think as to how there could be two Constitutions. Well, we have the original Constitution, which is for the white State citizens. That Constitution is the one for the “United States of America.”

Now, we have to think, what is the document that basically breaks down all the rights and rules for US citizens and could be classified as a “Constitution” for that class? Well, the only thing it could be is the 14th Amendment! There is no other document and Mr. Miller is clear in the following quote about how the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with State citizens and cannot claim any protections under the 14th Amendment:

Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.

So yes, there are two Constitutions… but I don’t think one is “FOR” and the other is “OF,” nor do I think the second Constitution is invisible or unwritten… it’s simply just the 14th Amendment!

XXII. “Information” versus Grand Jury indictment: The Destruction of Due Process in America

A grand jury indictment is the exercising of the white State citizen’s due process. A member of the sovereignty (white State citizen) can only be judged by a panel of people from that same political body (white State citizens). This is a very simple concept. The government or a corporation may not express justice by itself but needs that grand jury in order to exert justice into the political body which comprises the sovereignty (white State citizens). State citizens created the government and, thus, they are above it and the government may only express the judicial processes once a body of that sovereignty, called the grand jury, approve that it take place.

Obviously, a US citizen is not a member of this sovereignty and so there was a case that expressed this situation which is Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516 (U.S. Supreme Court 1884). This case is where it is made clear, from the Supreme Court, that an “information” could be used instead of a grand jury for criminal charges.

What is an “information?” Well it is essentially a charge that is filed by a prosecutor, rather than a grand jury of State citizens. You will hear judges say things like “court has an information before it alleging…,” “you are charged by way of information…,” etc. This shows that the defendant is being charged from the State or government prosecutor, not through the political body of the sovereignty. This, right away, is evidence that the presumption is that the defendant is a US citizen under the 14th Amendment, because that is the only way that someone can be charged via an “information.” If you do not rebut this presumption then it stands as truth in law!

Let’s review some of the quotes from the above case, Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516 (U.S. Supreme Court 1884). I’ll center and bold the quote then we’ll talk about it below the quote:

It is claimed on behalf of the prisoner that the conviction and sentence are void, on the ground that they are repugnant to that clause of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which is in these words:

"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

So, right away, alarm bells should be BLARING in your mind as regards to this situation. The entire basis of the original claim by the person bringing this case is a Fourteenth Amendment claim, which RIGHT AWAY shows us that this is a claim that is EXCLUSIVELY functional under the US citizenship class and is not a white State citizen claim.

Now, keep in mind, the 2nd California Constitution had just been ratified in 1879, so this was right after that on top of the Slaughterhouse Cases and the 14th Amendment. So this is all happening right around the same time! Let’s take a look at more quotes in this case…

And in Walker v. Savinet, 92 U.S. 90, the court said:

"A trial by jury in suits at common law pending in State courts is not, therefore, a privilege or immunity of national citizenship which the States are forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment to abridge. A State cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law; but this does not necessarily imply that all trials in the State courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. This requirement of the Constitution is met if the trial is had according to the settled course of judicial proceedings. Due process of law is process according to the law of the land. This process in the States is regulated by the law of State."

When they are talking about a “privilege or immunity of national citizenship,” THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE US CITIZEN CLASSIFICATION. So this is entirely true… US citizens have no right to a trial by jury. If you go back up and review the incorporation doctrine, you will see that, even to this day, the Seventh Amendment, which is your right to a trial by jury, has never been reincorporated in for US citizens!

There are not many other quotes on this case but we’ve done plenty to show you how this whole “information” thing is terribly flawed and would not apply to white State citizen. A white State citizen cannot be charged with an “information” and any attempt to do so should be met with an immediate motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction!

XXIII. The Holy Grail: The Ninth and Tenth Amendments

As a white State citizen (NON US CITIZEN), the ultimate “unlockable” aspect of law is the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (which, as you can see above, were never incorporated back in for the negroes).

Here is the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Here is a quote from James Madison speaking about the Ninth Amendment on June 8, 1789 in a Speech in the House of Representatives:

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure.

This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution [referring to what became the Ninth Amendment]."

Here is an earlier version of the Ninth Amendment written by Madison showing more context behind what he was trying to do:

"The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution."

Here is the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Here is a quote from James Madison’s Federalist No. 45 in January 1788. This was written during the ratification debates (before the Bill of Rights) to explain the federalism structure that the Tenth Amendment later codified:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Now, hopefully you can see, obviously, why these Amendments were ABSOLUTELY never incorporated back into the negro’s civil rights. People run around thinking that the Second Amendment is so cool… but it’s absolute TRASH compared to The Holy Grail… THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS.

These Amendments are ONLY available to free white men and women who are NOT US citizens, NOT negroes and NOT “residents” of anything. These Amendments are only available for white State citizens who domicile in the State in which their citizenship lies.

What the Ninth and Tenth Amendments say, basically in English, is “whatever you want your rights to be is totally fine, as long as you aren’t hurting anyone or lowering anyone else’s standard of living.” The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are, essentially, all of common law in a couple of sentences. AND THEY ARE THE MOST BADASS AMENDMENTS EVER.

You want your ACTUAL “right to travel”? Well here it is. The Ninth/Tenth Amendment is the ULTIMATE right to travel.

Worried about needing a license to “practice law”? NINTH/TENTH AMENDMENT.

Worried about growing and selling pot? NINTH/TENTH AMENDMENT (just be careful about interstate commerce).

Worried about your rights to your children? NINTH/TENTH AMENDMENT.

I think you get the point.

By having access to these Amendments, you become entirely immune to literally absolutely any aspect of any law in which there is no victim and not clearly provable damages. Things like “possession” crimes, crimes without victims, paperwork-related “crimes” all become legally impossible to prosecute. This is the ultimate in TRUE “immunity.”

If you want TRUE freedom in America, if you want to feel the bald eagles coursing through your veins, the Ninth/Tenth Amendment is what you have been looking for!

XXIV. How to shoot bald eagles into your veins

At this point, especially for those who are new to all this information, you may be wondering how to change all this nightmare. It’s honestly pretty easy.

If you were born in one of the 50 States of the Union, just get rid of all your businesses and licenses. Get rid of your driver’s license (only negroes and aliens can have those). Shed everything that says US citizen on it or “resident” or any of the other buzzwords. Operate your life through trusts. Do a Federally registered trademark on your name in all caps through the USPTO. Stop saying you are a US citizen or a resident.

Then, when it comes to your passport, you will be getting a passport on behalf of your sole proprietorship. Meaning your passport will have HIS date of birth on it… not yours (which is typically around 2 weeks after you were born… it’s the date that the Certificate of Live Birth was received and processed).

The passport will become the only form of identification that you will need. You can live a completely “normal” life in the system with just a passport. You can have bank accounts, credit cards, debit cards, checkbooks, credit card processing, etc. YOU CAN DO EVERYTHING THAT YOU WERE DOING BEFORE WITHOUT LOSING ANY FUNCTIONALITY OR COMFORTS IN LIFE.

And that’s it. It’s really quite easy. My free Contract Killer Course will have a lot more information on all of this and, if you want to learn more, you should sign up for it. It’s free! You should also order a copy of my book called The Guide to the Most Beautiful Woman in the World: The United States of America, available in paperback, audiobook, hardback and e-book on Amazon at: https://a.co/d/cyTzmUb

Anyone who has naturalized into this country and they were not born here would simply need to follow the instructions in the Naturalization Act of 1802. “Persons” who do not fit the definition of “free white person” would not be eligible for citizenship. Also, persons who are born here of African blood would also not be included (as seen in the definitions by Mr. Taney and Mr. Miller).

If that irritates you then do something about it! Sue and get your case to the US Supreme Court! Make us all proud! Fix and save this country! Be the next Dred Scott (he was one badass mother fucker to do what he did).

You could get The Slaughter-House Cases overturned or clarified! I know I have been beating the drum for it to be overturned in a lot of my other content… but maybe it just needs some clarification. But if it was simply “clarified” rather than overturned then negroes would not have the ability to become a part of “We the People” and they would be stuck as “persons” forever. This is not a choice for me to make but is up to the PEOPLE and PERSONS in America to decide! I’m a believer in the American spirit but, keep in mind, statistically, white people make up a vast majority of the American population. So if the melanated persons/people want to make a change in how citizenship works then they need to rise up and turn their entire culture into something that the white man can look at and be in agreement that they should be allowed to be included in “We the People.”

That last comment may enrage some people reading it. Well, how has your program been working out for you? We’re all fucking slaves now. Obviously whatever anyone has been doing and thinking is ABSOLUTE FUCKING ABYSMAL HORSE SHIT, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. To rise up and help the “black” race grow and become known far and wide as the most helpful, friendly and contributing race would automatically make the black race the primary race and then white people would then actually become the minority. You don’t see white people kicking the Asians out or doing shit to the Asian culture (not at this particular blip in time, anyways). Think about it. Any culture or race can become the “dominant” race by simply being badass and great in the eyes of all the other races in the world. Look at how people emotionally react to various races: look at Samoans… people don’t hate on them. In my opinion, which may offend some people, the “black” race has allowed itself to become infiltrated and destroyed from the inside. I think that’s unacceptable and I think we should all work together to fix this issue. I get that the situation is pretty fucked but sitting around and bitching about it has OBVIOULY NOT BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE BECAUSE LOOK AT THE FUCKING SEPTIC SHITHOLE WE ARE CURRENTLY LAYING IN.

Things aren’t great. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. We don’t need more dumbass fucking retard podcasts talking about it. What we need are SOLUTIONS: financial, legal, social, etc. These solutions will be made by thinking men who IGNORE ALL THE RACISM AND DIFFICULTIES THEY MAY ENCOUNTER AND DECIDE AND MAKE A PACT TO THEMSELVES THAT THEY WILL ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS AT ALL COSTS. Great historical figures such as Martin Luther King Jr come to mind.

This whole fucking world has become such a fucking pussy. No one is willing to die for anything anymore. What kind of pathetic fucking life is that? I didn’t even realize I was alive until I had something I was willing to die for.

Dred Scott is a great example of a man who should, frankly, be a shining star of what the “black” culture should be aspiring to. A fucking released slave AT ALMOST THE HEIGHT OF THE FUCKING CIVIL WAR, WHO WASN’T EVEN CONSIDERED A FUCKING MAN… HE WAS CONSIDERED AN ARTICLE OF FUCKING PROPERTY… AND HAD AN INTENTION AND HE TOOK THAT INTENTION ALL THE WAY TO THE FUCKING U.S. SUPREME COURT. BRO, THAT’S SO FUCKING BADASS. THAT DUDE DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING AGAINST. EVERY. FUCKING. POSSIBLE. CIRCUMSTANCE. THAT DUDE HAD LITERALLY THE WHOLE WORLD FIGHTING AGAINST HIM. THAT DUDE PLAYED A GAME UNDER THE MOST IMPOSSIBLE ODDS THAT ANY FUCKING MAN OR WOMAN HAS EVER SEEN. ODDS THAT ARE SO LOW… THEY DON’T EVEN EXIST IN TODAY’S WORLD. ODDS LIKE A MAN WITH NO LEGS WINNING A TRACK OLYMPIC MEDAL. AND HE FUCKING STOOD UP AND DID IT ANYWAYS.

If we had literally like THREE Dred Scotts in today’s world… I promise you, with the way things are now, this whole people/persons bullshit would not be around much longer. But no, everyone is a fucking pussy now and wants to get jerked off like little bitches. I consider myself a Dred Scott (the white version, obviously).

That’s why we’re in the world we are in. Because we don’t have more badasses like Dred Scott. AND I MEAN IN ALL CULTURES, INCLUDING THE “WHITE RACE.”

Anyone can press these claims in court and advance through the appellate courts and into the US Supreme Court. Will it be you?

I WANT TO END THIS TREATISE BY BEING ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT ABOUT SOMETHING: IF THE COUNTRY DECIDES TO OPERATE THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO OPERATE AND DECIDES, AS A COUNTRY, TO NOT CHANGE OR OVERTURN THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES OR THE 14TH AMENDMENT, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS THE COUNTRY IS GOING TO SPLIT INTO TWO CLEAR CATEGORIES JUST LIKE IT USED TO BE. “WE THE PEOPLE” WILL BE THE WHITE STATE CITIZENS UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE NEGROES WILL BE “PERSONS” UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT. ALL POLICE WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED TO INTERACT WITH NEGROES (SHERIFFS ARE FOR WHITE PEOPLE!) AND ALL WHITE STATE CITIZENS WILL HAVE COMPLETE IMMUNITY FROM THE POLICE. WHITE AND BLACK SEGREGATION WILL COME BACK INTO THIS COUNTRY THAT WILL MAKE THE MID-20TH CENTURY LOOK LIKE A DISNEY FILM. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS FOR OUR GLORIOUS COUNTRY. MY JOB IS TO DIG UP THE TRUTH, ORGANIZE IT AND PRESENT IT IN A WAY THAT IT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD SO THAT US, AS A PEOPLE AND A PERSONS, MAY MAKE EDUCATED AND KNOWING DECISIONS ABOUT OUR LAWS AND EXISTENCE. WHAT OCCURS FROM THIS POINT FORWARD DEPENDS ENTIRELY UPON WHAT YOU DECIDE TO DO WITH THIS INFORMATION. IF THE BLACK RACE DECIDES TO DO NOTHING AS REGARDS TO THIS INFORMATION, YOU ARE MOVING RAPIDLY TOWARDS SLAVERY COMING BACK… AND JUST LIKE MR. TANEY SAID, IT WILL BE DONE “FOR YOUR BENEFIT.” NEGROES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SILVER/GOLD COINS (GOLD ABROGATION ACT), THEY WILL NEED TO HAVE DRIVER’S LICENSES, THEY WILL NEED PERMITS AND LICENSES FOR EVERYTHING, THEN THE WHITE PEOPLE WILL NOT NEED TO HAVE ANY OF THAT. THIS IS THE WORLD WE ARE STEERING TOWARDS UNLESS WE GET SOME DRED SCOTTS STANDING UP AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THE SITUATION. IT’S NOT MY JOB TO HOLD THE DICK OF THE BLACK RACE AND ATTEMPT TO STOP THIS FROM OCCURRING. THIS IS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY… IF NO ONE ELSE CARES ABOUT SORTING THIS OUT FOR THE BLACKS, FROM THE BLACK RACE ITSELF, THEN THAT IS A SELF-ESTEEM ISSUE DEEPLY IMBEDDED IN THE BLACK RACE THAT I CANNOT OVERCOME AS A WHITE MAN. DON’T SAY I DIDN’T WARN YOU. YOU WILL BE IN FUCKING CHAINS AGAIN AND THERE IS NOT A GODDAMN THING I CAN DO ABOUT IT. I CANNOT FIGHT YOUR BATTLES FOR YOU, I’M SIMPLY TRYING TO EQUIP YOU AND PREPARE YOU FOR THE BATTLE. IF YOU DECIDE TO NOT SHOW UP FOR THE FIGHT, YOU WILL LOSE AND THE FUTURE IS ALREADY WRITTEN. IF THE BLACK RACE DECIDES THEY ARE NOT GOING TO FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHT TO BE PEOPLE, I WILL NOT PERSONALLY OWN SLAVES BUT I WILL ALSO DO NOTHING TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING. I AM NOT THE SAVIOR OF THE BLACKS, WHITES, OR ANY OTHER RACE. YOU PAID ME NOTHING TO BE HERE OR READ THIS. MY JOB IS COMPLETED BY THE WRITING OF THIS. I HAVE NO FURTHER OBLIGATIONS. FROM HERE, PEOPLE AND PERSONS NEED TO DECIDE AND ACT. THE FUTURE OF AMERICA IS UNDETERMINED AND IT’S NOT MY FUCKING JOB TO DECIDE, IT’S YOURS!

Bonus Section: How to Naturalize as a state citizen if you are an alien and also how to operate as a state citizen if you were native born in one of the 50 states

So there were 4 different instances of change involving the rules of State citizenship and naturalization. These are the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802. 1802 is the current and active version of the Act (never been repealed and is the guidelines to naturalize as a State citizen if you are a free white person).

All 4 of these Acts are quite short and very easy to read. To get a complete picture, I will post links to each version in order of date. It would be good to quickly read them… it won’t take long.

1790: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9kw4bbn55d89cvlc0p1rp/1790-Naturalization-Act.pdf?rlkey=1bq4nghpnszc6olve5ko22b9e&st=kinqwnkh&dl=0

1795: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qrkxjczzrsferjj65dpyf/1795-Naturalization-Act.pdf?rlkey=9oahbsdp16620gcvjkapek7ej&st=gmyvu9cr&dl=0

1798: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/896k60s1ab704cy99kg3r/1798-Naturalization-Act.pdf?rlkey=penxxgxc33l8ckxs2jgf7v9d9&st=dez6tdlh&dl=0

1802: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/j53lgony36692aiwx8f8d/1802-Naturalization-Act.pdf?rlkey=l99oyrvms4izs88xrqms5p7l3&st=adsjg2f3&dl=0

IMPORTANT NOTE: ANYONE BORN IN WASHINGTON DC, IN A US TERRITORY/INSULAR POSSESSION OR ON ANY FEDERAL MILITARY BASE WOULD ALL BE HANDLED AS ALIENS, NO DIFFERENT THAN SOMEONE COMING FROM FRANCE, JAPAN, OR ANYWHERE ELSE. YOU WOULD NOT BE NATIVE-BORN STATE CITIZENS. YOU WOULD FOLLOW THE SAME NATURALIZATION PROCESS AS ANYONE ELSE WANTING TO BECOME A STATE CITIZEN. BUT ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT, IF YOUR PARENTS WERE ONLY TEMPORARILY IN A ZONE AND WERE ESSENTIALLY DOMICILED IN A STATE, THEN YOU CAN CLAIM THAT YOUR CITIZENSHIP IS ATTACHED TO THAT ZONE AND NOT THE TEMPORARY LOCATION IN WHICH YOUR BIRTH TOOK PLACE. BUT IF YOUR PARENTS HAD LIVED, OPENLY, IN WASHINGTON DC OR SOME TERRITORY, AND YOU WERE BORN ON MAYBE SOME INTERNATIONAL MILITARY BASE… THAT DOMICILE WOULD BE IRRELEVENT AND YOU WOULD NEED TO NATURALIZE AS A STATE CITIZEN.

So the first thing we should talk about is the idea of a “Common Law Court of Record.” If you go online and type in “do I need to be a US citizen to serve on a jury?” you will see that the answer is yes. This is already all the evidence that we need to prove that the courts that are available do not service State citizens and the idea of a Common Law Court of Record does not mean the local courthouse. Any court where the jury is made up of US citizens would not have ANYTHING to do with naturalizing as a State citizen. So where do you go to announce the fact that you are one? Well, nowhere. This has pros and cons, both of which I will cover in this section. If you would like more information on the slow and quiet elimination of these courts, Grok gave me an AMAZING timeline that you can see here: https://x.com/i/grok/share/fCIBRaTsIOwP9YlYjnv2N5Nw5

The 1802 version of the Naturalization Act is the currently active one right now, so let’s break down the various parts of what is required as per it, exactly. You can pull up the original text up above but what I’m going to do is translate it into what’s available in today’s world (figuring those original courts are gone):

1. You need to be a “resident” for 5 years total in the USA, with one year in the State of which becomes your domicile. This is exactly where the term “resident” comes from. So the term “permanent resident” means “someone who has not expressed a desire to become a citizen and is perpetually a foreigner and non-citizen of the State.” It could also be “a negro who has no physical or legal capacity to become a citizen of a State.” So how do you fix this? Well, after being 2 years into your residency, you are suppose to write an affidavit proving your intention to be a citizen of your State. In that same affidavit, you must renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at the time, be a citizen or subject. Where would you file such an affidavit figuring there is no court available to hear it? Well I would post it up on your website and also file it into the county recorder… I’m not sure there’s much more you could do! This affidavit also needs to have a section swearing to support the constitution of the United States.

2. Originally, they had you submit evidence to the court that you have completed your 5 year residency and one year of that in the State where citizenship will finalize. You also had to provide evidence that you have “good moral character” during that time… which had some quite fascinating aspects to it. You had to also prove that you upheld the Constitution and had to supply proof that you had strong agreement to the order and happiness available through the Constitution. What’s a bit interesting about the idea of “good moral character” is that various things like epilepsy and polygamy were considered not within those bounds (hell, even being broke was considered outside of those bounds). The issue with this particular point is that the reality of what “good moral character” is has changed a lot since this time period, plus there is no one actually checking up on it anyways. So, basically, what I would do is add to the above affidavit in #1 just aspects of your life that you feel like exemplify the idea of “good moral character.” Any area in your life that helps other people would be in there. For example, if I was naturalizing into California, I would put in the affidavit info about how I give away my research and my courses for free and touch hundreds of thousands of lives completely free of charge. Then, if I ever needed to prove the truthfulness of that statement, I would simply print some of the emails and successes you guys send me and I would be able to place that as evidence to support the comments said in the affidavit. I think it’s really that easy. This is also a great motivation to get off your lazy ass and make some “money” because one of the most American things that a person can be is PRODUCTIVE. Unproductive (meaning broke) people were not considered to be of good moral character in terms of what the ideal American would be. If you want lots more information on what is considered a good American, please see the video introducing my new book at: https://www.williamsandwilliamslawfirm.com/tm-2000-25-modernized

3. When you swear off all other allegiances, that would include any other citizenship that you may hold. State citizenship is hardcore and does not allow for any other allegiance or fidelity to any other state besides the one you’re going to become a citizen of. Now, I know for some of you this may be concerning in relation to The Nation of The Amnesty Coalition. Well, figuring no one is ever going to come and critique any of this, combined with the fact that one of the basic purposes of The Nation of The Amnesty Coalition is to restore State citizenship… I really don’t think this is a problem. The Nation of The Amnesty Coalition is literally the most American group on the planet… it’s literally more American than America right now… so I really don’t see this being an issue. Now, in the future, when we actually restore the Common Law Courts of Record, any alien looking to naturalize as a State citizen may need to end their relationship with The Nation of The Amnesty Coalition. But this does not apply to native-born citizens, to my knowledge, so it does not matter for natives to also be working with or ambassadors of The Amnesty Coalition. Also, keep in mind, my nation only offers nationality… not citizenship. So it’s a special kind of relationship that would be something you could press up against to debate as regards how it fits into your journey through naturalization. But this would require you to relinquish French citizenship if you’re from France, Italian citizenship if you are from Italy… etc. Personally, I would go to the actual embassy of your country and actually finalize an elimination of your other citizenships if you’re looking to be a State citizen. Take this seriously and do it for real if you’re going to do it. There’s no turning back from State citizenship. It’s a “burn all the other boats” proposition!

4. You need to be a “free white person” to naturalize as a State citizen. I would also clarify that in your affidavit. This may be a little tricky for people who don’t know if they are one or not. Well there are entire court cases talking about what is a free white person and what is not. But you also need to keep in mind that there is no one here to tell you that you are not. Also, if you know anything about rule of evidence 301, in today’s court systems, you would know that when you push a presumption across in a civil suit, the other party is saddled with having to prove with evidence that it’s not true. If I were naturalizing as a State citizen, I would use that to my advantage and I would simply say that I am a free white person. The courts cannot even adjudicate anything regarding that so no one even has the capacity to argue with you. If you really are melanated with a lot of African blood, or you are a descendant of slaves, you might be in trouble once Common Law Courts of Record come back. But frankly, I wouldn’t worry much about it right now. Plus, I’m sure we’re going to have some changes to all this soon because this whole situation is ridiculous. I would take advantage of the current climate and simply say that you are a free white person… let anyone who disagrees with you bring up counter-arguments. If no one does then what you say becomes fact… so use that rule of evidence 301 to your advantage while you can!

So, if you’ve already been in the USA for 5 years, you can immediately naturalize as a State citizen. If you have been in the country only a couple of years, I would write your affidavit of intent to become a State citizen (you’re supposed to do that 3 years before your 5 years is complete… so at the 2 year mark into your residency).

Now, keep in mind that any citizenship you may think you have with the District of Columbia must also be shed as part of the naturalization process. So, if you wanted something like a Federal passport you need to be ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that your passport is only for a business or trust (typically a sole prop). Because having Federal US citizenship would violate your grounds for State citizenship and would nullify it.

I would turn in any green cards you may have, etc, simply letting the government know that you have completed your 5 year residency to become a State citizen in accordance with the Naturalization Act of 1802. I would get a copy of your above affidavit, showing that it was recorded with the public recorder, and attach that along with a letter to eliminate the green card because you are eliminating any foreign allegiance and fidelity in order to finalize State citizenship.

Now, keep in mind, what I am writing here is not a set or pat thing. Much of the infrastructure for doing this is gone. So what I’m writing above is just what makes the most sense for me given what we have to work with here. The courts cannot adjudicate you being a State citizen, so you cannot do anything more than just let them know that you are one. They can’t “validate” or deny any of this so don’t pretend like they can.

Now, as for native-born white people who were born in one of the 50 States, you’ve always been a State citizen and simply need to start acting like it. You were NEVER a “resident” and you never needed to complete a 5 year residency. You’re always a citizen of and domiciled wherever you happen to be and you’re NEVER a resident or US citizen. This means it would be a felony for you to vote, pay taxes, have a driver’s license, run for governor of the corporate States, run for president in DC, have a business license, concealed carry permit, etc. You need to sign under penalty of perjury that you are either a US citizen or resident to do almost any of that. So you simply need to clean up your life so you don’t have any of that garbage. All of that violates your allegiance and fidelity to your State and, while you’re native-born, it should simply bother you that you are essentially committing treason to your State of citizenship/domicile by doing any of that. You’re a real American… it’s time to start acting like it.

I don’t want to hear any complaints about comfort or difficulties in the above information. If you want to have a driver’s license so that you can rent cars then you ARE NOT A FUCKING STATE CITIZEN. PERIOD. END OF STORY. So the choice is simply entirely yours.

If you are native-born and you have a birth certificate then you also have a sole proprietorship. This sole proprietorship is a person in accordance with 8 USC § 1101(b)(3) and can have a passport. This is the only way I have figured out how to be in the Federal system and out of it at the same time. The sole prop has a passport and you, as a State citizen, CANNOT HAVE ANY FORM OF ID OR LICENSE OF ANY SHAPE OR FORM. By having ANY license, permit, etc, you are, in that same breath, forfeiting your State citizenship.

This is not for pussies or people who just want to game the system. This is for real Americans to step up and embody the true spirit of an American. That spirit is beautifully spelled out by a quote from Daniel Webster:

“I shall stand by the Union, and by all who stand by it. I shall do justice to the whole country...in all I say, and act for the good of the whole country in all I do. I mean to stand upon the Constitution. I need no other platform. I shall know but one country. The ends I aim at shall be my country's, my God's, and Truth's. I was born an American; I live an American; I shall die an American; and I intend to perform the duties incumbent upon me in that character to the end of my career. I mean to do this with absolute disregard of personal consequences. What are the personal consequences? What is the individual man, with all the good or evil that may betide him, in comparison with the good or evil which may befall a great country, and in the midst of great transactions which concern that country's fate? Let the consequences be what they will, I am careless. No man can suffer too much, and no man can fall too soon, if he suffer, or if he fall, in the defense of the liberties and constitution of his country.”

That’s EXACTLY how I feel and if that’s not how you feel about America then FUCK YOU, State citizenship is not for you.

THIS TREATISE IS THE PRECURSER TO MY BOOK, THE GUIDE TO THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMAN IN THE WORLD: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ALONG THE LINES OF THIS TREATISE, PLEASE CLICK THIS LINK TO SEE A VIDEO INTRODUCING THE BOOK AS WELL AS A LINK TO PURCHASE THE BOOK ON AMAZON (e-book, audiobook, paperback and hardback): https://www.williamsandwilliamslawfirm.com/tm-2000-25-modernized