Brandon is really amazing. His promo is quite shocking, but when he actually gets into the nitty-gritty of the topic, he’s very professional and knowledgeable.
There is some confusing and misleading data in this post -
Either your intentionally misleading the American people (I hope not) or you just haven’t truly verified the facts and details of the definitions, per the link provided showing copper moonshine - who‼️ should know better (intended for copper moonshine- people should be double checking his data). So people can and should do their own research and verification for the true verifiable documented facts.
In your explanation you shared incomplete misinfo and misleading data possibly for the intention to keep people chasing their tails and distracted and working on finding the truth and facts or maybe just not verified completely.
I just hope people do their own research and verify factual data and continue to search for factual data.
👇🏻👇🏻
This is what you posted which is completely misleading and incomplete
“ PROTECTED CITIZENS
In the definitions 8 U.S. Code § 1101 – Definitions
(22)The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
So, “citizen of a state” = “national of the United States” = “foreign official”.
Let’s verify the data-
Lower case state and capital State are different definitions as is Citizen and citizen.
As defined by the INA, all U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals but only relatively small number of persons acquire U.S. nationality without becoming U.S. citizens.
Section 101(a)(21) of the INA defines the term "national" as "a person owing permanent allegiance to a state." Section 101(a)(22) of the INA provides that the term "national of the United States" includes all U.S. citizens as well as persons who, though not citizens of the United States, owe permanent allegiance to the United States (non-citizen nationals).
If you truly pay Attn you can see the difference.
One is a national (21) of USA under Gods Law Natural law in (s)tate
Vs
the United States Citizen & United States national (22) have Allegiance to the United States (American Samoan non-citizen national)
Why does it say US Citizen and US national in (22)- did you notice that they both have allegiance to United States (corp)
The national definition (21) has no allegiance to the United States Corp-
Take a look at verify legal definition of (s)tate to comprehend the difference. USC (uscode.house.gov)
title 8 1101 (21) national (under Gods Law) & (22) US national (American Samoan) (allegiance to United States corp)
And why was this case removed from copper moonshines website?
"Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability."
- U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).
👆🏻👆🏻This case proves there is a federal citizen/United States citizen and US National due their territory being owned by US- owe allegiance to United States.
As a national of USA is completely different from U.S.
ALWAYS DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. This has been mentioned in previous articles.
i am happy to collaborate at any time. Feel free to email direct from Substack. However, telling someone they "should know better" is quite presumptuous and negative.
There is a potentially negative or accusatory tone in the supplied comments. Is this true? Have i ever met you? Do you know intent? If the tone is truly of a negative nature, please confirm so i can delete your comments to reduce any negative energy. Everything is supplied for free. There is no benefit/compensation ever expected or requested.
I will never tell a soul what to do. All choices are to each of mankind.
"disinformation" is a highly politicized word. It is difficult to label it as a term as there is not a consistent definition which people agree on, and it is used to disarm and shame. Please update your comments to remove the word.
Now, into the nitty gritty.
For those who are unaware and are reading the comments, the INA is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. There is also the Immigration and Naturalization Act enacted in 1965 known as the Hart-Cellar Act.
I am not directly copying Copper Moonshine Stills. The link was provided for reference.
Yes, as is noted numerous times in other posts, and has been defined, "states" and "States" are two different terms with distinct meanings, and as a result, associated with different nations. One being geographically defined, and the other in the District of Columbia. There is one exception i have found in the tax code 26 USC. It seems this was either a typo or meant to confuse. Citizen and citizen are different in most, but not all cases.
To be clear, the national of the United States and the associated allegiance is strictly related to the Passport application acceptance and the view of the State Department. Although, all Passports are by law, under the USPS (executive Branch) and submitted at the Post Office (very different as it is the physical location) by the local Postmaster.
Yes, you are correct, a "national" per 8 USC 1101(a)(21) owes permanent allegiance to a "state". That would be Natural Law in the case of a man and Common Law in the case of the republican form of government.
As also noted at the onset of the article, you DO NOT NEED to go this route to travel lawfully without tags. However, the policy enforcers are taught to treat mankind poorly when encountered with such a lawful man. There have been a few reports of training VERY RECENTLY that legal council who are doing the legal portion of policy enforcer training at both local Sheriff and State policy enforcers, is that if a man states they are either a state national (which is also misleading as it should be national of a state - due to the "action phrase" in the grammar when combining the words versus separating "national of a state" which allows for a proper sentence and placement of the noun and verbs) or diplomat or foreign national to let them leave and tell them to have a nice day as long as no harm is occurring.
Also, please note "permanent allegiance to the United States" and then look at the definition of "permanent". It is "permanent" until it is not...
(31) The term “permanent” means a relationship of continuing or lasting nature, as distinguished from a temporary, but a relationship may be permanent even though it is one that may be dissolved eventually at the instance either of the Unites States or of the individual, in accordance with law.
So, it is permanent until it is not and you can naturalize "by any means whatsoever" at any time and declare you "national" status in accordance with law.
i can also supply the numerous case law on citizenship which was provided in a previous post.
the goal of this post was to explain the difference in the ability to travel, drive, and be recognized by the policy enforcers as foreign to their jurisdiction without the controversy.
The other option is to go either completely without plates or with your own plates. Regardless, the steps of turning in the State plates, the driver's license, owning you automobile, voiding the Certificate of Title contract, and all the other steps are necessary or there is significant jurisdictional issues.
To be clear, the national of the United States and the associated allegiance is strictly related to the Passport application acceptance and the view of the State Department. Although, all Passports are by law, under the USPS (executive Branch) and submitted at the Post Office (very different as it is the physical location) by the local Postmaster.
~~~~
The INA explanation and definition (22) - the only part here that has to do with passport is “US citizens are US nationals”
Which applies to 3 status only showing 2 obvious statuses of the United States (Corp) federal citizens.
Do you know where the rest of the definitions (21) and (22) source comes from?
And
What do you mean by this part of your comment?
So, “citizen of a state” = “national of the United States” = “foreign official”.
“citizen of a state” = “national of the United States” = “foreign official”.
18 USC § 112 3,(c)
For the purpose of this section “foreign government”, “foreign official”, “internationally protected person”, “international organization”, “national of the United States”, and “official guest” shall have the same meanings as those provided in section 1116(b) of this title.
Notice "foreign official" is listed with "national of the United States" and "foreign government"?
AND
For the preceding part of the code for the verification of what it is talking about:
18 U.S. Code § 112 - Protection of foreign officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons
AND
We already know a "citizen of a state" is not part of the United States and is foreign relative to that entity.
AND
Anyone who is not a resident of the United States is in fact a non-resident alien relative to the United States.
AND
Anyone who is not a citizen of the United States is either a noncitizen national of the United States, and/or a national of a state, and/or any combination when one declares their nationality through naturalization by "any means whatsoever".
AND
One also needs to be a resident by their definitions to be a citizen of the United States.
So, by strict definition, “citizen of a state” = “national of the United States” = “foreign official”.
Related to the source of the definitions for (21) and (22), they are 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and (22). This is where it is codified in the Federal Register. The Act was simply the legislation. No legislation can be enforceable without the actual code entered into the Federal Register. For land law it must be codified in the Federal Record.
“Whoever violates any safe conduct or passport duly obtained and issued under authority of the United States shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”
So, if you get a US passport, regardless if Diplomat (which they automatically reject if you check the upper right front page box for some reason - there is a suit just filed against the Department of State for the unlawful rejection as a national of a state - we will see where this goes) or citizen of the United States or national of the United States, if said policy enforcer violates one's right to travel because they have a passport or interferes with one's safe conduct, they can be fined.
The issue of obtaining the passport as a national of the United States is their current automatic rejection of diplomat action. So, the violation of safe conduct then becomes the push back is obtained as a national of the United States. The Department of State has been violating their own laws for years, and the policy enforcers do not always respect the passport. However, by getting the DOT # and diplomatic plates, you fall squarely within the recognized laws and they must leave you alone. Again, this is about removing controversy.
By all means, i do not discourage anyone who has the time to fight them in court (because you will win with people who do witness and sign affirmations accordingly and pushing back lawfully) to go with your own private plates as long as you own your automobile and have done a novation for the driver's license, certificate of title, and registration, and returned the license plates.
I would have to double check the title 8 code 112- I would not say a national is a foreign official, but maybe official guests. The officials are federal employees so I would not say a national/Citizen of a (s)tate would be a United States official/employee.
A citizen of United States could be citizen but not a Citizen of a state. One is federal and the other private under natural law.
But the definition (21) private national under natural law is alien to the United States Federal system United States. All verifiable and documented information. No mixing of words when being prepared to defend yourself if and when needed.
Legal words mean things and the way they are
written does too.
You could only defend yourself if you follow factual and documented data when it comes using the correct tools
per the link provided showing copper moonshine - you should know better. Edited to say who should no better. Copper moonshine is misleading and disinfo - he removed an import case that told and gave people a clue that there is a difference between federal citizen and a private national or Citizen under Gods law.
Which was this case :
"Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability."
- U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).
As for state - permanent allegiance to (s)tate - this is the land under God, the people, state Citizen, also called a de jure Citizen, is an
individual who has God given protected and complete inalienable natural rights. The Allegiance some may take as it would be to God, yourself and your property and at the same time when possible assisting your neighbor.
The constitution does not protect our rights it is supposedly intended to limit government.
Like you said here
“Yes, you are correct, a "national" per 8 USC 1101(a)(21) owes permanent allegiance to a "state". That would be Natural Law in the case of a man and Common Law “
If you are in the private you are not United States, which is the Federal Corporation Gov- Congress and their military.
As for the national of United States (AKA as US national, United States national, Non-citizen national, American Samoan)
The US citizen and US National have Allegiance to United States which is definition (22)- the only reason these US persons are bundled together in this definition is due their allegiance to United States.
Some or most Law enforcers are ignorant of their own laws or intentionally acting under color of law with the tyrannical behavior from some law enforcers and judges or magistrates out there.
Do you mind explaining this section?
So, “citizen of a state” = “national of the United States” = “foreign official”.
Oh yeah - yes, the Constitution has NOTHING to do with the people. i attempted to cover this in a few of the previous posts. It is between the Federation of States / Continental Congress and the newly formed organization in 1787 as the new Congress for united states of America. Our document and all the grievances as reminders are:
the Declaration of Independence
AND
A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms
AND
the similar and coincident Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress.
The Bill of Rights is a clarifying set of limits on the government up to Amendment 12. Everything after are corporate charter by-laws. The Constitution is and has always been an Operating Agreement for the federal government in commerce only.
And, we NEVER had a Democracy OR a Constitutional Republic for the states. We only had a republican form of government that was based 100% on voluntary participation and selected representation through to the States (body politic) and the United States Congress (body politic).
I do not directly quote Moonshine. He has some good stuff, but I have noted some discrepancies and hence did not quote directly. Again, reference only.
Also, to reiterate, the national of the United States is "permanent" until it is not. You can naturalize as a national at any time by "any means whatsoever". The (b) option is STRICTLY for a US passport. With said passport, per the passport laws, the policy enforcer is in violation and can be fined if the holder is impeded.
This is information for people to avoid controversy. Which should be our ultimate goal under the premise of doing no harm to another of mankind. To show there are options and if you understand their terms, you can also be a national by your choice as long as you understand the meaning.
The most important thing is to understand we are all seeds of consciousness, creations of the Creator who creates. And, once you know who you are in the grand scheme of things, much of these nuances become easier to navigate and implement 100% at your own discretion as you see fit to your benefit.
That is the cool part of this whole fraud. There is a remedy everywhere once you understand their little term game. It allows the plausible deniability.
You can be in the private at any time as long as you do not contract something in which there is no out. In the case of the passport, the out is simple... declaration by any means whatsoever that you are a national of any land you so chose at any time.
It is important to note, based on their own definitions, you DO NOT need naturalization paperwork to declare that nationality. None! Many that are in some movement (i am not part of any movement - simply sharing knowledge as it comes to help others get closer to understanding the framework and who they are) think you need to contract AGAIN to some document in the regards to be a national of a state. Completely false.
The bigger issue is to not think you are a "person" or "human". We are of mankind and a seed of consciousness. On a preference note, i do not use "God" as it is a mistranslation in Greek and Hebrew and has more to do with military ranks. So, i tend to avoid.
Also the term residence, in the their terms doesn’t mean what we think it means. I’ve heard that there are over 700 different “legal” definitions depending on what law it’s written into. So just that one word they cleverly deceive almost everyone.
The easiest way is to clearly declare you are not a resident. Period. Of anywhere. Unless you are visiting temporarily like vacation. Believe it or not. They tricked everyone and used the Residence Act from 1790 and inverted after the civil war to make everyone a resident unless they declare otherwise. The word "person" has a very similar deception.
Do you happen to know the origin of the term sole propriotor? Is it a title in the British System and a trader in interstate commerce or did it also exist under the Common Law , Law of Merchant?
By the way, case law is only a reference. Mankind sets law of the common, and the Consciousness of the universe sets the natural law. Cases often have the judges who wrote the opinion not use the proper upper and lower case reference. There are quite a few for the term "state", "State" that this can be read and misleading. They are, in their capacity after all, only hue-man.
… it’s all just all legal meaning a language that looks like English but a complete different language for their presumed authority and impositions. It is all deceptive usury of words in their illusion.
yes I agree and the reason they type things up with proper method, as I have seen plenty of examples you just mentioned, is because the federal gov does not follow their own rules and laws. That is intentional and if no one questions it and asks for clarification they will carry on with their Legal Plunder.
Brandon is really amazing. His promo is quite shocking, but when he actually gets into the nitty-gritty of the topic, he’s very professional and knowledgeable.
There is some confusing and misleading data in this post -
Either your intentionally misleading the American people (I hope not) or you just haven’t truly verified the facts and details of the definitions, per the link provided showing copper moonshine - who‼️ should know better (intended for copper moonshine- people should be double checking his data). So people can and should do their own research and verification for the true verifiable documented facts.
In your explanation you shared incomplete misinfo and misleading data possibly for the intention to keep people chasing their tails and distracted and working on finding the truth and facts or maybe just not verified completely.
I just hope people do their own research and verify factual data and continue to search for factual data.
👇🏻👇🏻
This is what you posted which is completely misleading and incomplete
“ PROTECTED CITIZENS
In the definitions 8 U.S. Code § 1101 – Definitions
(22)The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
So, “citizen of a state” = “national of the United States” = “foreign official”.
Let’s verify the data-
Lower case state and capital State are different definitions as is Citizen and citizen.
Per legal and lawful meanings and definitions.
Found in Travel.state.gov
Per INA definitions
This is the complete post:
As defined by the INA, all U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals but only relatively small number of persons acquire U.S. nationality without becoming U.S. citizens.
Section 101(a)(21) of the INA defines the term "national" as "a person owing permanent allegiance to a state." Section 101(a)(22) of the INA provides that the term "national of the United States" includes all U.S. citizens as well as persons who, though not citizens of the United States, owe permanent allegiance to the United States (non-citizen nationals).
If you truly pay Attn you can see the difference.
One is a national (21) of USA under Gods Law Natural law in (s)tate
Vs
the United States Citizen & United States national (22) have Allegiance to the United States (American Samoan non-citizen national)
Why does it say US Citizen and US national in (22)- did you notice that they both have allegiance to United States (corp)
The national definition (21) has no allegiance to the United States Corp-
Take a look at verify legal definition of (s)tate to comprehend the difference. USC (uscode.house.gov)
title 8 1101 (21) national (under Gods Law) & (22) US national (American Samoan) (allegiance to United States corp)
And why was this case removed from copper moonshines website?
"Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability."
- U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).
👆🏻👆🏻This case proves there is a federal citizen/United States citizen and US National due their territory being owned by US- owe allegiance to United States.
As a national of USA is completely different from U.S.
https://www.govregs.com/uscode/expand/title28_partVI_chapter176_subchapterA_section3002
15(a)
Always verify the data
Good Day!
Thank you for your comments.
ALWAYS DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. This has been mentioned in previous articles.
i am happy to collaborate at any time. Feel free to email direct from Substack. However, telling someone they "should know better" is quite presumptuous and negative.
There is a potentially negative or accusatory tone in the supplied comments. Is this true? Have i ever met you? Do you know intent? If the tone is truly of a negative nature, please confirm so i can delete your comments to reduce any negative energy. Everything is supplied for free. There is no benefit/compensation ever expected or requested.
I will never tell a soul what to do. All choices are to each of mankind.
"disinformation" is a highly politicized word. It is difficult to label it as a term as there is not a consistent definition which people agree on, and it is used to disarm and shame. Please update your comments to remove the word.
Now, into the nitty gritty.
For those who are unaware and are reading the comments, the INA is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. There is also the Immigration and Naturalization Act enacted in 1965 known as the Hart-Cellar Act.
I am not directly copying Copper Moonshine Stills. The link was provided for reference.
Yes, as is noted numerous times in other posts, and has been defined, "states" and "States" are two different terms with distinct meanings, and as a result, associated with different nations. One being geographically defined, and the other in the District of Columbia. There is one exception i have found in the tax code 26 USC. It seems this was either a typo or meant to confuse. Citizen and citizen are different in most, but not all cases.
To be clear, the national of the United States and the associated allegiance is strictly related to the Passport application acceptance and the view of the State Department. Although, all Passports are by law, under the USPS (executive Branch) and submitted at the Post Office (very different as it is the physical location) by the local Postmaster.
Yes, you are correct, a "national" per 8 USC 1101(a)(21) owes permanent allegiance to a "state". That would be Natural Law in the case of a man and Common Law in the case of the republican form of government.
As also noted at the onset of the article, you DO NOT NEED to go this route to travel lawfully without tags. However, the policy enforcers are taught to treat mankind poorly when encountered with such a lawful man. There have been a few reports of training VERY RECENTLY that legal council who are doing the legal portion of policy enforcer training at both local Sheriff and State policy enforcers, is that if a man states they are either a state national (which is also misleading as it should be national of a state - due to the "action phrase" in the grammar when combining the words versus separating "national of a state" which allows for a proper sentence and placement of the noun and verbs) or diplomat or foreign national to let them leave and tell them to have a nice day as long as no harm is occurring.
Also, please note "permanent allegiance to the United States" and then look at the definition of "permanent". It is "permanent" until it is not...
(31) The term “permanent” means a relationship of continuing or lasting nature, as distinguished from a temporary, but a relationship may be permanent even though it is one that may be dissolved eventually at the instance either of the Unites States or of the individual, in accordance with law.
So, it is permanent until it is not and you can naturalize "by any means whatsoever" at any time and declare you "national" status in accordance with law.
i can also supply the numerous case law on citizenship which was provided in a previous post.
the goal of this post was to explain the difference in the ability to travel, drive, and be recognized by the policy enforcers as foreign to their jurisdiction without the controversy.
The other option is to go either completely without plates or with your own plates. Regardless, the steps of turning in the State plates, the driver's license, owning you automobile, voiding the Certificate of Title contract, and all the other steps are necessary or there is significant jurisdictional issues.
Do explain your thoughts here
To be clear, the national of the United States and the associated allegiance is strictly related to the Passport application acceptance and the view of the State Department. Although, all Passports are by law, under the USPS (executive Branch) and submitted at the Post Office (very different as it is the physical location) by the local Postmaster.
~~~~
The INA explanation and definition (22) - the only part here that has to do with passport is “US citizens are US nationals”
Which applies to 3 status only showing 2 obvious statuses of the United States (Corp) federal citizens.
Do you know where the rest of the definitions (21) and (22) source comes from?
And
What do you mean by this part of your comment?
So, “citizen of a state” = “national of the United States” = “foreign official”.
Let's start with the last part:
“citizen of a state” = “national of the United States” = “foreign official”.
18 USC § 112 3,(c)
For the purpose of this section “foreign government”, “foreign official”, “internationally protected person”, “international organization”, “national of the United States”, and “official guest” shall have the same meanings as those provided in section 1116(b) of this title.
Notice "foreign official" is listed with "national of the United States" and "foreign government"?
AND
For the preceding part of the code for the verification of what it is talking about:
18 U.S. Code § 112 - Protection of foreign officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons
AND
We already know a "citizen of a state" is not part of the United States and is foreign relative to that entity.
AND
Anyone who is not a resident of the United States is in fact a non-resident alien relative to the United States.
AND
Anyone who is not a citizen of the United States is either a noncitizen national of the United States, and/or a national of a state, and/or any combination when one declares their nationality through naturalization by "any means whatsoever".
AND
One also needs to be a resident by their definitions to be a citizen of the United States.
So, by strict definition, “citizen of a state” = “national of the United States” = “foreign official”.
Related to the source of the definitions for (21) and (22), they are 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and (22). This is where it is codified in the Federal Register. The Act was simply the legislation. No legislation can be enforceable without the actual code entered into the Federal Register. For land law it must be codified in the Federal Record.
Here is the link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
Related to passports:
18 U.S. Code § 1545. Safe conduct violation,
“Whoever violates any safe conduct or passport duly obtained and issued under authority of the United States shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”
So, if you get a US passport, regardless if Diplomat (which they automatically reject if you check the upper right front page box for some reason - there is a suit just filed against the Department of State for the unlawful rejection as a national of a state - we will see where this goes) or citizen of the United States or national of the United States, if said policy enforcer violates one's right to travel because they have a passport or interferes with one's safe conduct, they can be fined.
The issue of obtaining the passport as a national of the United States is their current automatic rejection of diplomat action. So, the violation of safe conduct then becomes the push back is obtained as a national of the United States. The Department of State has been violating their own laws for years, and the policy enforcers do not always respect the passport. However, by getting the DOT # and diplomatic plates, you fall squarely within the recognized laws and they must leave you alone. Again, this is about removing controversy.
By all means, i do not discourage anyone who has the time to fight them in court (because you will win with people who do witness and sign affirmations accordingly and pushing back lawfully) to go with your own private plates as long as you own your automobile and have done a novation for the driver's license, certificate of title, and registration, and returned the license plates.
I would have to double check the title 8 code 112- I would not say a national is a foreign official, but maybe official guests. The officials are federal employees so I would not say a national/Citizen of a (s)tate would be a United States official/employee.
A citizen of United States could be citizen but not a Citizen of a state. One is federal and the other private under natural law.
But the definition (21) private national under natural law is alien to the United States Federal system United States. All verifiable and documented information. No mixing of words when being prepared to defend yourself if and when needed.
Legal words mean things and the way they are
written does too.
You could only defend yourself if you follow factual and documented data when it comes using the correct tools
Good day
Thanks for responding -
On my comment above I wrote
“I hope not”
And also typed
“or maybe just not verified completely”
no negative intention intended.
There is a section I posted:
per the link provided showing copper moonshine - you should know better. Edited to say who should no better. Copper moonshine is misleading and disinfo - he removed an import case that told and gave people a clue that there is a difference between federal citizen and a private national or Citizen under Gods law.
Which was this case :
"Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability."
- U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).
As for state - permanent allegiance to (s)tate - this is the land under God, the people, state Citizen, also called a de jure Citizen, is an
individual who has God given protected and complete inalienable natural rights. The Allegiance some may take as it would be to God, yourself and your property and at the same time when possible assisting your neighbor.
The constitution does not protect our rights it is supposedly intended to limit government.
Like you said here
“Yes, you are correct, a "national" per 8 USC 1101(a)(21) owes permanent allegiance to a "state". That would be Natural Law in the case of a man and Common Law “
If you are in the private you are not United States, which is the Federal Corporation Gov- Congress and their military.
As for the national of United States (AKA as US national, United States national, Non-citizen national, American Samoan)
The US citizen and US National have Allegiance to United States which is definition (22)- the only reason these US persons are bundled together in this definition is due their allegiance to United States.
Some or most Law enforcers are ignorant of their own laws or intentionally acting under color of law with the tyrannical behavior from some law enforcers and judges or magistrates out there.
Do you mind explaining this section?
So, “citizen of a state” = “national of the United States” = “foreign official”.
I do appreciate your posts.
Positive vibes✨
Oh yeah - yes, the Constitution has NOTHING to do with the people. i attempted to cover this in a few of the previous posts. It is between the Federation of States / Continental Congress and the newly formed organization in 1787 as the new Congress for united states of America. Our document and all the grievances as reminders are:
the Declaration of Independence
AND
A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms
AND
the similar and coincident Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress.
The Bill of Rights is a clarifying set of limits on the government up to Amendment 12. Everything after are corporate charter by-laws. The Constitution is and has always been an Operating Agreement for the federal government in commerce only.
And, we NEVER had a Democracy OR a Constitutional Republic for the states. We only had a republican form of government that was based 100% on voluntary participation and selected representation through to the States (body politic) and the United States Congress (body politic).
I do not directly quote Moonshine. He has some good stuff, but I have noted some discrepancies and hence did not quote directly. Again, reference only.
Also, to reiterate, the national of the United States is "permanent" until it is not. You can naturalize as a national at any time by "any means whatsoever". The (b) option is STRICTLY for a US passport. With said passport, per the passport laws, the policy enforcer is in violation and can be fined if the holder is impeded.
This is information for people to avoid controversy. Which should be our ultimate goal under the premise of doing no harm to another of mankind. To show there are options and if you understand their terms, you can also be a national by your choice as long as you understand the meaning.
The most important thing is to understand we are all seeds of consciousness, creations of the Creator who creates. And, once you know who you are in the grand scheme of things, much of these nuances become easier to navigate and implement 100% at your own discretion as you see fit to your benefit.
That is the cool part of this whole fraud. There is a remedy everywhere once you understand their little term game. It allows the plausible deniability.
You can be in the private at any time as long as you do not contract something in which there is no out. In the case of the passport, the out is simple... declaration by any means whatsoever that you are a national of any land you so chose at any time.
It is important to note, based on their own definitions, you DO NOT need naturalization paperwork to declare that nationality. None! Many that are in some movement (i am not part of any movement - simply sharing knowledge as it comes to help others get closer to understanding the framework and who they are) think you need to contract AGAIN to some document in the regards to be a national of a state. Completely false.
The bigger issue is to not think you are a "person" or "human". We are of mankind and a seed of consciousness. On a preference note, i do not use "God" as it is a mistranslation in Greek and Hebrew and has more to do with military ranks. So, i tend to avoid.
Also the term residence, in the their terms doesn’t mean what we think it means. I’ve heard that there are over 700 different “legal” definitions depending on what law it’s written into. So just that one word they cleverly deceive almost everyone.
The easiest way is to clearly declare you are not a resident. Period. Of anywhere. Unless you are visiting temporarily like vacation. Believe it or not. They tricked everyone and used the Residence Act from 1790 and inverted after the civil war to make everyone a resident unless they declare otherwise. The word "person" has a very similar deception.
Do you happen to know the origin of the term sole propriotor? Is it a title in the British System and a trader in interstate commerce or did it also exist under the Common Law , Law of Merchant?
You’re exactly correct on the word person. I’m not a person, under the terms of the 14th amendment. Again a legal land mine.
By the way, case law is only a reference. Mankind sets law of the common, and the Consciousness of the universe sets the natural law. Cases often have the judges who wrote the opinion not use the proper upper and lower case reference. There are quite a few for the term "state", "State" that this can be read and misleading. They are, in their capacity after all, only hue-man.
… it’s all just all legal meaning a language that looks like English but a complete different language for their presumed authority and impositions. It is all deceptive usury of words in their illusion.
Great comments M. They are reading from a different dictionary than common people.
Very true… a dictionary the people were never educated on.
Yes. There are a few. Black's, Bouvier's, Ballentine's, Oxford... And no one (myself included) were ever closed into these. Now I have copies of most.
Anything to carry on their legal Agenda
Good thing is we are nonresident to the residency.
yes I agree and the reason they type things up with proper method, as I have seen plenty of examples you just mentioned, is because the federal gov does not follow their own rules and laws. That is intentional and if no one questions it and asks for clarification they will carry on with their Legal Plunder.
It definitely does "appear" that way based on those inconsistencies.