Hi Shire, additionally appreciate your detailed and relevant essays. Didn't you put out essay regarding the Civil War States Constitutional Reconstruction dilemma?
Shire Herald: Do I understand correctly that the delegated authority to set a uniform rule for naturalization of foreigners is to naturalize to the states not to their own version of the United States?
From both March 6th, 1933 germane to E.O. 2039 & March 9th, 1933 germane to E.O. 2040..., the sovereign good people of united America of these United States & confirmation by supreme Court via Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), there is no federal common law or equity, as constitutionally cognizant before the former sovereign States (as of 17th Article of Amendment, now a closely supervised federal unit of a National Government) or federal courts, no longer operating per Article III, Section 2 as guaranteed to native born (Article II, Section 1, Cl. 5) per Article 4, Section 4. Rather, Courts of Admiralty, constitutionally speaking under Emergency War Powers brought forward by the Banking Emergency Relief Act of 1933 via the "Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917.
And, which emergency war powers continues economic war against native born American's until the sovereign good people of united America of these United States demands all running for public official and accepting any emoluments, to pledge themselves toward having whatever President sitting in Office of the President of the United States, to immediately repeal said emergencies and restore to the sovereign good people of united America of these United States their civilian due process in law & equity, NOW!!!
If this is not done. Your doom is assured. PERIOD!!!
Take heed America, your failure to harken to all-fathers sovereign witness of the Good people of America's COUNCIL to muster your American Legions to stand at the ready as the grand army of the republic, is your final call to arms, for restitution of all things in service of honor above all else, eternal forevermore.
"I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth. As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.” John 17:15
Chose in action wisely & Normal Law will reign both by Golden Rule & Castle Rule and on thy day of testing, all things by divine providence and goodly spirit of wisdom, arise in honor as thy crown of living, eternal forevermore.
Whatever coin of time remains to rightly 'chose in action,' may your service in honor for honor above all else, be eternal forevermore.
your selection of dictionaries is incorrect. citizen is defined in Bouvier Law Dictionary 1856 by an act of the United States Congress. (for whatever that is worth) as is is dated 1856 prior to the color of law Incorporated governance post 1861. This definition is correct. Does it fail at the first defect? I stopped at your first defect. Do you want a do over with the correct dictionary???
CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United
States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other
public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the
people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all
white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of
the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women,
and children.
2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may
fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any
office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of
president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that "the citizens
of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several states." Art. 4, s. 2.
3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants
of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the
rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the
United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as
it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to
become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that
no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1
Meigs, R. 331.
4. A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the Union,
is a citizen of that state. 6 Pet. 761 Paine, 594;1 Brock. 391; 1 Paige, 183
Metc. & Perk. Dig. h.t.; vide 3 Story's Const. Sec. 1687 Bouv. Inst. Index,
b. t.; 2 Kent, Com. 258; 4 Johns. Ch. R. 430; Vatt. B. 1, c. Id, Sec. 212;
Poth. Des Personnes, tit. 2, s. 1. Vide Body Politic; Inhabitant.
Your definition per Bouvier's is correct for lower case citizen. From there, it depends on the reference of jurisdiction if it is Bouvier's or Black's ["after 1891"]. There is not a conflict in the definitions. Also, be careful of the definition of persons and how it relates to the law of persons and Lawful Persons versus Legal Persons and the related persons. Citizens and citizens definitions are agreed as you note. And?
It is also important to contrast the two Law dictionaries based on context, dates of case use, and court jurisdiction.
And - i am not a person. But, i can have persons. They are proxies. Anything less than a man might be considered a person.
So, what is your point? Do you want a do over? You have not provided clarity on the defect.
U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873); "The term resident and citizen of the United States (this means 14th amendment citizen) is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress"
Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy V Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443. McDonel v State. 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323; “One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States”
256 P. 545. Affirmed 278 US 123, Tashiro v Jordan “There is a clear distinction between national citizenship and state citizenship”
Tashiro v Jordan May 20, 1927, 255 P. 545 Ca. Supreme Court; “Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other” ["Citizen at the beginning of he sentence is only capitalized due to beginning the sentence - obviously confusing."]
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F. Supp 383; "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Might you have something to say about de facto and de jure. I am communicating with a knowledgeable man. The name suggests UK or hobbit land although we have our New Hampshire, might Dick Marple ring a bell.
Claim status as an American and as much one can possibly be through multigenerational heritage on this land and soil. The name referenced does not ring a bell. Lineage is both of the isles and Continental Europe with minor native influence. Did you know that many of the original "counties" in America started as shires by name? Specifically Virginia and the Virginia Company "counties"...
I will respond to the other inquiry shortly. And yes, there is a difference. If the word is not spelled the same, it does not mean the same thing.
We declare as men and women with our progeny on the land and soil of Oregon without ruler or subject. sovereign see Bouvier 1856 only us and only here in de jure.
Remember when Anna said that corporations are allowed by our government provided they behave lawfully and provided the Pope commits to liquidate them if they violate this condition? Did you ever come accross the source where this agreement was made or where we can find this condition set forth by our gov?
When Anna says she foreclosed on all corporations to the year 1702. What do you understand this to mean? Why the year 1702 and what impact can it be expected when you cannot drive them out of business?
It is to clean up all bad corporations dating back to the Bottomry Bonds Scandal of the Dutch East India Trading Company.
1702 – The British Crown and Dutch East India Company collude under Maritime
Wagering Act. Living men are deemed to be “vessels” and insured. Their death/loss
becomes a means of enrichment for the commercial corporations and the British
Government
It is to get everything on notice. Lack of point by point affidavit of rebuttal makes it fact in law and the evidence is then documented. So when the lawful government is back in place, there is standing to fully disband and discharge.
Is it an accurate estimate that the Monroe Doctrine is in effect now with the return of our lawful government? It would be the case that these British crown corporations willl be in violation of our treaties by not allowing neighboring countries to retire their lawful government too.
Interesting question. The Monroe Doctrine is from 1823. First; context - From the Congressional Record: Please read the following: http://annavonreitz.com/treatyofverona.pdf
So, let's look at dates and jurisdiction. The Monroe Doctrine was stated in an address by James Monroe in 1823. This was while America was still comprised of an unincorporated Federal Republic formed by the 1787 ["ratified in 1789"] constitution for the united States of America and the two extensions; the territorial and municipal ["unincorporated"] federal subsets that effectively were active as of 1801 until 1868, deriving authority for the enumerated duties from the 1789 and 1790 Constitutions. Monroe was speaking of the international jurisdiction to protect its neighbors from further colonial oppression in its neighboring countries and the attempt of the monarchial rulers to squash representation by the people.
This Doctrine was invoked in 1865, after the "American Civil War" and while the General Orders 100 were in effect ["of which led to the Lieber Code in 1898"]. So, the start of military districts has commenced within the boundaries of America to control the results of the conflict and the representative southern districts. BY 1868 the same federal government would now be an incorporated government through a Scottish crown corporation substituted during "reconstruction" ["which was never finished"] named "The United States of America, Inc.".
So, every time it has been invoked since ["again later during Theodore Roosevelts term, a few times with marines in South American countries, and then during the Cuban missile crisis"]. All while our country was already being run as British subcontracting corporations.
So, although the doctrine is to suppress European colonialization, it was invoked many times after our federal government was already under a British/Scottish corporate structure.
Also, the use of military to suppress colonization is an international jurisdiction activity. Once there are enough local jural assemblies in place, then the lawful States of America can command our subcontractors to act accordingly for other international jurisdiction countries people ["who so call for it"] in the western hemisphere who have had their country subverted of the right to representation by the people. But, i would say we have enough to deal with inside our borders first. And, we have a bad habit of getting involved in other countries under the name of "democracy" and end up being the tyrant. But, that is an opinion.
I understand, but the idea is that our presence back on the scene would require them to cease from any further activity that encroach us. We have called for the people of the world to also organize their lawful government and provided them for a platform to record their paperwork. Are those oppressing governments required to step back and let the people assemble and accept the credit they are owed ?
I understand, but the idea is that our presence back on the scene would require them to cease from any further activity that encroach us. We have called for the people of the world to me
Hi Shire, additionally appreciate your detailed and relevant essays. Didn't you put out essay regarding the Civil War States Constitutional Reconstruction dilemma?
Shire Herald: Do I understand correctly that the delegated authority to set a uniform rule for naturalization of foreigners is to naturalize to the states not to their own version of the United States?
To the point....
From both March 6th, 1933 germane to E.O. 2039 & March 9th, 1933 germane to E.O. 2040..., the sovereign good people of united America of these United States & confirmation by supreme Court via Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), there is no federal common law or equity, as constitutionally cognizant before the former sovereign States (as of 17th Article of Amendment, now a closely supervised federal unit of a National Government) or federal courts, no longer operating per Article III, Section 2 as guaranteed to native born (Article II, Section 1, Cl. 5) per Article 4, Section 4. Rather, Courts of Admiralty, constitutionally speaking under Emergency War Powers brought forward by the Banking Emergency Relief Act of 1933 via the "Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917.
And, which emergency war powers continues economic war against native born American's until the sovereign good people of united America of these United States demands all running for public official and accepting any emoluments, to pledge themselves toward having whatever President sitting in Office of the President of the United States, to immediately repeal said emergencies and restore to the sovereign good people of united America of these United States their civilian due process in law & equity, NOW!!!
If this is not done. Your doom is assured. PERIOD!!!
Take heed America, your failure to harken to all-fathers sovereign witness of the Good people of America's COUNCIL to muster your American Legions to stand at the ready as the grand army of the republic, is your final call to arms, for restitution of all things in service of honor above all else, eternal forevermore.
"I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth. As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.” John 17:15
Chose in action wisely & Normal Law will reign both by Golden Rule & Castle Rule and on thy day of testing, all things by divine providence and goodly spirit of wisdom, arise in honor as thy crown of living, eternal forevermore.
Whatever coin of time remains to rightly 'chose in action,' may your service in honor for honor above all else, be eternal forevermore.
Be wise, safe & blessed,
Arthur
your selection of dictionaries is incorrect. citizen is defined in Bouvier Law Dictionary 1856 by an act of the United States Congress. (for whatever that is worth) as is is dated 1856 prior to the color of law Incorporated governance post 1861. This definition is correct. Does it fail at the first defect? I stopped at your first defect. Do you want a do over with the correct dictionary???
CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United
States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other
public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the
people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all
white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of
the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women,
and children.
2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may
fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any
office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of
president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that "the citizens
of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several states." Art. 4, s. 2.
3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants
of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the
rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the
United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as
it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to
become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that
no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1
Meigs, R. 331.
4. A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the Union,
is a citizen of that state. 6 Pet. 761 Paine, 594;1 Brock. 391; 1 Paige, 183
Metc. & Perk. Dig. h.t.; vide 3 Story's Const. Sec. 1687 Bouv. Inst. Index,
b. t.; 2 Kent, Com. 258; 4 Johns. Ch. R. 430; Vatt. B. 1, c. Id, Sec. 212;
Poth. Des Personnes, tit. 2, s. 1. Vide Body Politic; Inhabitant.
Your definition per Bouvier's is correct for lower case citizen. From there, it depends on the reference of jurisdiction if it is Bouvier's or Black's ["after 1891"]. There is not a conflict in the definitions. Also, be careful of the definition of persons and how it relates to the law of persons and Lawful Persons versus Legal Persons and the related persons. Citizens and citizens definitions are agreed as you note. And?
It is also important to contrast the two Law dictionaries based on context, dates of case use, and court jurisdiction.
And - i am not a person. But, i can have persons. They are proxies. Anything less than a man might be considered a person.
So, what is your point? Do you want a do over? You have not provided clarity on the defect.
U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873); "The term resident and citizen of the United States (this means 14th amendment citizen) is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress"
Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy V Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443. McDonel v State. 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323; “One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States”
256 P. 545. Affirmed 278 US 123, Tashiro v Jordan “There is a clear distinction between national citizenship and state citizenship”
Tashiro v Jordan May 20, 1927, 255 P. 545 Ca. Supreme Court; “Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other” ["Citizen at the beginning of he sentence is only capitalized due to beginning the sentence - obviously confusing."]
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F. Supp 383; "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
And so on if you read on...
Might you have something to say about de facto and de jure. I am communicating with a knowledgeable man. The name suggests UK or hobbit land although we have our New Hampshire, might Dick Marple ring a bell.
Claim status as an American and as much one can possibly be through multigenerational heritage on this land and soil. The name referenced does not ring a bell. Lineage is both of the isles and Continental Europe with minor native influence. Did you know that many of the original "counties" in America started as shires by name? Specifically Virginia and the Virginia Company "counties"...
I will respond to the other inquiry shortly. And yes, there is a difference. If the word is not spelled the same, it does not mean the same thing.
I look forward to it. Thank you.
We declare as men and women with our progeny on the land and soil of Oregon without ruler or subject. sovereign see Bouvier 1856 only us and only here in de jure.
Hi Shire,
Remember when Anna said that corporations are allowed by our government provided they behave lawfully and provided the Pope commits to liquidate them if they violate this condition? Did you ever come accross the source where this agreement was made or where we can find this condition set forth by our gov?
Shire Herald,
When Anna says she foreclosed on all corporations to the year 1702. What do you understand this to mean? Why the year 1702 and what impact can it be expected when you cannot drive them out of business?
It is to clean up all bad corporations dating back to the Bottomry Bonds Scandal of the Dutch East India Trading Company.
1702 – The British Crown and Dutch East India Company collude under Maritime
Wagering Act. Living men are deemed to be “vessels” and insured. Their death/loss
becomes a means of enrichment for the commercial corporations and the British
Government
It is to get everything on notice. Lack of point by point affidavit of rebuttal makes it fact in law and the evidence is then documented. So when the lawful government is back in place, there is standing to fully disband and discharge.
It is all about the evidence and agreements.
Is it an accurate estimate that the Monroe Doctrine is in effect now with the return of our lawful government? It would be the case that these British crown corporations willl be in violation of our treaties by not allowing neighboring countries to retire their lawful government too.
Interesting question. The Monroe Doctrine is from 1823. First; context - From the Congressional Record: Please read the following: http://annavonreitz.com/treatyofverona.pdf
So, let's look at dates and jurisdiction. The Monroe Doctrine was stated in an address by James Monroe in 1823. This was while America was still comprised of an unincorporated Federal Republic formed by the 1787 ["ratified in 1789"] constitution for the united States of America and the two extensions; the territorial and municipal ["unincorporated"] federal subsets that effectively were active as of 1801 until 1868, deriving authority for the enumerated duties from the 1789 and 1790 Constitutions. Monroe was speaking of the international jurisdiction to protect its neighbors from further colonial oppression in its neighboring countries and the attempt of the monarchial rulers to squash representation by the people.
This Doctrine was invoked in 1865, after the "American Civil War" and while the General Orders 100 were in effect ["of which led to the Lieber Code in 1898"]. So, the start of military districts has commenced within the boundaries of America to control the results of the conflict and the representative southern districts. BY 1868 the same federal government would now be an incorporated government through a Scottish crown corporation substituted during "reconstruction" ["which was never finished"] named "The United States of America, Inc.".
So, every time it has been invoked since ["again later during Theodore Roosevelts term, a few times with marines in South American countries, and then during the Cuban missile crisis"]. All while our country was already being run as British subcontracting corporations.
So, although the doctrine is to suppress European colonialization, it was invoked many times after our federal government was already under a British/Scottish corporate structure.
Also, the use of military to suppress colonization is an international jurisdiction activity. Once there are enough local jural assemblies in place, then the lawful States of America can command our subcontractors to act accordingly for other international jurisdiction countries people ["who so call for it"] in the western hemisphere who have had their country subverted of the right to representation by the people. But, i would say we have enough to deal with inside our borders first. And, we have a bad habit of getting involved in other countries under the name of "democracy" and end up being the tyrant. But, that is an opinion.
I understand, but the idea is that our presence back on the scene would require them to cease from any further activity that encroach us. We have called for the people of the world to also organize their lawful government and provided them for a platform to record their paperwork. Are those oppressing governments required to step back and let the people assemble and accept the credit they are owed ?
Yes. But it is still up to the people to do so.
A republic, off you can keep it...
Thank you.
I understand, but the idea is that our presence back on the scene would require them to cease from any further activity that encroach us. We have called for the people of the world to me
I meant to say “restore.”
Hi Shire, additionally appreciate you're detailed and relevant essays!