What you are about to read is going against EVERYTHING you were EVER taught in school and college in history classes. For a reason. You will know why as you continue IF you study ALL the material offered.
Some parts of this comes from"The United States is Still A British Colony" by James Montgomery" and "The History of the House of Rothschild" by James Montgomery also, along with "The New History of America" presentations on Youtube by the "Informer" (He wishes not to declare his real name for privacy, and the safety of his life reasons.) and moderator, Vyzygoth further down this page.
First off.. The United States is a corporation and it does not have us the citizens in its best interest, but only their own. All we are are a means of income as in taxes and that we are each being used as collateral for it's debts. Have a social security number? Hello collateral being. Those are facts. Look that up.
The following is from "The New History Of America" Youtube video, which you may see listed below.
"The entire Government of the States and that of the United States was completely set up under FRAUD. Make no mistake about what I am saying. You will not like the truth, but you are living it every day. All your life you have lived under this fraud. All the laws made are a Fraud. All Departments of so called Government operate under this Fraud. Congress and the State Legislators are operating this fraud to the hilt everyday. There is nothing you do that is not steeped in fraud. In fact you yourselves keep the Fraud on going, to the delight of the governments, when you blindly revere their constitutions, which I call the Biggest Con Job of all time. You believe there is a Republic when there is none. Some believe we have a democracy when we have none. You use their Courts when the Lord Almighty admonished His followers (Christians) not to use them. You call yourselves Citizens of these RICO Organizations and yet you want to be free, but under the Fraud you can't get free. You wonder why you lose in their courts, thinking they are Your courts. You use their fraudulent laws and their con jobs that in reality do not apply to you at all. Everything is based on FRAUD, Period. Do I have a way out, you ask? Yes, but again you won't like what I have to say, so I remain quiet, EXCEPT to say , Read Hamilton's Federalist Paper #28." statement from "The New History of America" Youtube presentation.
The following is from "The United States is Still a British Colony" by James Montgomery."The following is broken points of the book above to get your attention and hopefully draw you to read ALL seven (7) Chapters to get the message of this book. "..... Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king. Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief, separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the colonist. The slogan "Don't Tread On Me" was the standard borne by the militias."
As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2). I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans, it was Benjamin Franklin, Esquire, a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title include, Esquire. An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions. "Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for who so ever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562 "Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641 Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley, Esquire..Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown. In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 theUnited States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty? I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won. Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these men did gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free. When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown (footnote 3) Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."
STUDY ALL THE INFORMATION FROM THESE SITES http://thinkorbebeaten.com/informer HERE AND HERE
Here are a series of 6 presentations you should listen to. They are dated a bit and the sites they mention are not correct and you will be need to use the ones offered above so disregard the ones they speak of!!
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shzpr63Q1mA
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9igqG0XxdM
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYYlSnSLCpQ
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGKrByOkMUU
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bexfHdyrME4
Part 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKVicLY99Fw
Click on the picture below. It will reveal a presentation you can listen to. Be prepared for more education. IT MUST be known that over half the legislators and lawmakers in any of our governments know these things. They are not privy to this information. They have to reach the 33rd degree or higher Free Mason degrees.
In less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire."All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:...
........Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay's Treaty of 1794 (footnote 5). If you will remember from the Paris Treaty of 1783, John Jay Esqr. was one of the negotiators of the Treaty. In 1794 he negotiated another Treaty with Britain. There was great controversy among the American people about this Treaty.
In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed to be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years after America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone forgot to tell the king of England.In Article 6, the king is still dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection of debt and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed we owe. In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this time concerning where and with who the United States could trade. In Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety of material that would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material going to its enemies ports. Who won the Revolutionary War?
That's right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because our status is far worse now than then. I'll explain. Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the Title of nobility or honor.
The War of 1812 served several purposes. (From "The History of The House of Rothschild:" 1812: Backed by Rothschild money, and Nathan Mayer Rothschild's orders, the British declare war on the United States. The Rothschilds plan was to cause the United States to build up such a debt in fighting this war that they would have to surrender to the Rothschilds and allow the charter for the Rothschild owned First Bank of the United States to be renewed.)Forgotten Amendment;The Articles of Confederation, Article VI states: "nor shall the united States in Congress
assembled, or any of them, grant any Title of nobility." The Constitution for the united States, in
Article, I Section 9, clause 8 states: "No Title of nobility shall be granted by the united States; and no Person holding any Office or Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the
Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." Also, Section 10, clause 1 states, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
Confederation; grant Letters of Marque or Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any
Thing but Gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto of Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of nobility."
There was however, no measurable penalty for violation of the above Sections, Congress saw
this as a great threat to the freedom of Americans, and our Republican form of government. In
January 1810 Senator Reed proposed the Thirteenth Amendment, and on April 26, 1810 was
passed by the Senate 26 to 1 (1st-2nd session, p. 670) and by the House 87 to 3 on May 1, 1810
(2nd session, p. 2050) and submitted to the seventeen states for ratification. The Amendment reads as follows: "If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office of emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." From An "American Dictionary of the English Language, 1st Edition," Noah Webster, (1828) defines nobility as: "3. The qualities which constitute distinction of rank in civil society, according to the customs or laws of the country; that eminence or dignity which a man derives from birth or title conferred, and which places him in an order above common men."; and, "4. The persons collectively who enjoy rank above commoners; the peerage."
The fore-mentioned Sections in the Constitution for the united States, and the above proposed Thirteenth Amendment sought to prohibit the above definition, which would give any advantage or privilege to some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Thirteen of the seventeen states listed below understood the importance of this Amendment.
1788 Massachusetts Feb. 27, 1812
1789 North Carolina Dec. 23, 1811
1788 Georgia Dec. 13, 1811
1796 Tennessee Nov. 21, 1811
1791 Vermont Oct. 24, 1811
1787 New Jersey Feb., 13, 1811
1787 Pennsylvania Feb. 6, 1811
1787 Delaware Feb. 2, 1811
1803 Ohio Jan. 31, 1811
1792 Kentucky Jan. 31, 1811
1788 Maryland Dec. 25, 1810
Date Voted
Against the
Amendment
Date voted the
State Amendment Date Admitted
to the Union
1790 Rhode Island Setp. 15, 1814
1788 South Carolina Dec. 7, 1813
1788 Connecticut May 1813
1788 New York Mar. 12, 1811
1788 Virginia Mar. 12, 1819
On March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc." file, p. 299 for micro- film)"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..."The official day of ratification was March 12, 1819, this was the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code. Virginia ordered 4,000 copies, almost triple their usual order. Word of Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the states and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio published the new Amendment in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the new Amendment to be printed for use in the public schools, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana published the new Amendment in the Indiana Revised Laws, of 1831 on P. 20. The Northwest Territories published the new Amendment in 1833; Ohio published the new Amendment again in 1831 and in 1833. Connecticut, one of the states that voted against the new Amendment published the new Amendment in 1835. Wisconsin Territory published the new Amendment in 1839; Iowa Territory published the new Amendment in 1843; Ohio published the new Amendment again, in 1848; Kansas published the new Amendment in 1855; and Nebraska Territory published the new Amendment six years in a row from 1855 to 1860. Colorado Territory published the new Amendment in 1865 and again 1867, in the 1867 printing, the present Thirteenth Amendment (slavery Amendment) was listed as the Fourteenth Amendment. The repeated reprinting of the Amended united States Constitution is conclusive evidence of its passage. Also, as evidence of the new Thirteenth Amendments impending passage; on December 2, 1817 John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, wrote to Buck (an attorney) regarding the position Buck had been assigned. The letter reads:"...if it should be the opinion of this Government that the acceptance on your part of the Commission under which it was granted did not interfere with your citizenship. It is the opinion of the Executive that under the 13th amendment to the constitution by the acceptance of such an appointment from any foreign Government, a citizen of the United States ceases to enjoy that character, and becomes incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the United States or either of them... J.Q.A. By virtue of these titles and honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of citizens. A majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. After the War of 1812 was concluded the Treaty of Ghent was signed and ratified (footnote 6). In Article 4 of the Treaty, the United States gained what was already given in the Treaty of Paris 1783, namely islands off the U.S. Coast. Also, two men were to be given the power to decide theborders and disagreements, if they could not, the power was to be given to an outside sovereign power and their decision was final and considered conclusive. In Article 9 it is admitted there are citizens and subjects in America. As you have seen, the two terms are interchangeable synonymous. In Article 10 you will see where the idea for the overthrow of this country came from and on what issue. The issue raised by England was slavery and it was nurtured by the king's; emissaries behind the scenes. This would finally lead to the Civil War, even though the Supreme Court had declared the states and their citizens property rights could not be infringed on by the United States government or Congress. This was further declared by the following Presidential;quotes, where they declared to violate the states rights would violate the U.S. Constitution. Also, history shows that slavery would not have existed much longer in the Southern states public sentiment was changing and slavery was quickly disappearing The Civil War was about destroying property rights and the U.S. Constitution which supported these rights. Read the following quotes of Presidents just before the Civil War: I believe that involuntary servitude, as it exists in different States of this Confederacy, is recognized by the Constitution. I believe that it stands like any other admitted right, and that the States where it exists are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions." Franklin Pierce Inaugural Address, March 4, 1853 - Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol,5. "The whole Territorial question being thus settled upon the principle of popular sovereignty-a principle as ancient as free government itself-everything of a practical nature has been decided. No other question remains for adjustment, because all agree that under the Constitution slavery in the States is beyond the reach of any human power except that of the respective States themselves wherein it exists." James Buchanan Inaugural Address, March 4, 1857 - Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 5. "I cordially congratulate you upon the final settlement by the Supreme Court of the United States of the question of slavery in the Territories, which had presented an aspect so truly formidable at the commencement of my Administration. The right has been established of every citizen to take his property of any kind, including slaves, into the common Territories belonging equally to all the States of the Confederacy, and to have it protected there under the Federal Constitution. Neither Congress nor a Territorial legislature nor any human power has any authority to annul or impair this vested right. The supreme judicial tribunal of the country, which is a coordinate branch of the Government, has sanctioned and affirmed these principles of constitutional law, so manifestly just in themselves and so well calculated to promote peace and harmony among the States." James Buchanan, Third Annual Message, December 19, 1859 - Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 5. So there is no misunderstanding I am not rearguing slavery. Slavery is morally wrong and contrary to God Almighty's Law. In this divisive issue, the true attack was on our natural rights and on the Constitution. The core of the attack was on our right to possess allodial property. Our God given right to own property in allodial was taken away by conquest of the Civil War. If you are free this right cannot be taken away. The opposite of free is slave or subject, we were allowed to believe we were free for about 70 years. Then the king said enough, and had the slavery issue pushed to the front by the northern press, which so formed northern public opinion, that they were willing to send their sons to die in the Civil War. The southern States were not fighting so much for the slave issue, but for the right to own property, any property. These property rights were granted by the king in the Treaty of 1783, knowing they would soon be forfeited by the American people through ignorance. Do you think you own your house? If you were to stop paying taxes, federal or state, you would soon find out that you were just being allowed to live and pay rent for this house. The rent being the taxes to the king, who supplied the benefit of commerce. A free man not under a monarch, democracy, dictatorship or socialist government, but is under a republican form of government would not and could not have his property taken. Why! The king's tax would not and could not be levied. If the Americans had been paying attention the first 70 years to the subterfuge and corruption of the Constitution and government representatives, instead of chasing the money supplied by the king, the Conquest of this country during the Civil War could have been avoided. George Washington had vision during the Revolutionary War, concerning the Civil War. You need to read it. Footnote 7
Civil War and The Conquest that followed
The government and press propaganda that the War was to free the black people from slavery is ridiculous, once you understand the Civil War Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The black people are just as much slaves today as before the Civil War just as the white people are, and also we find ourselves subjects of the king/queen of England. The only thing that changed for black people is they changed masters and were granted a few rights which I might add can be taken away anytime the government chooses. Since the 1930's the black people have been paid reparations to buy off their silence, in other words, keep the slaves on the plantation working. I do not say this to shock or come across as prejudiced, because I'm not. Here's what Russell Means said, for those that don't remember who he is, he was the father in the movie called, "Last Of The Mohicans". Russell Means said "until the white man is free, we will never be free" he is referring to are the Indians. There has never been a truer statement, however the problem is the white people are not aware of their enslavement. At the risk of being redundant; to set the record straight, because Lord only knows what will be said about what I just said regarding black people, I believe that if you are born in this country you are equal, period. Forget the empty promises of civil rights, what about you unalienable natural rights under God Almighty. All Americans are feudal tenants on the land, allowed to rent the property they live on as long as the king gets his cut.What about self-determination, or being able to own allodial title to property, which means the king cannot take your property for failure to pay a tax. Which means you did not own it to begin with. The king allows you to use the material goods and land. Again this is financial servitude. "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts payable in Gold" written in 1933. The king controlled the government by the time the North won the Civil War, through the use of lawyers that called the shots behind the scenes, just as they do now and well placed subjects in the United States government. This would not have been possible if not for England destroying our documents in 1812 and the covering up of state documents of the original 13th Amendment. According to International law, what took place when the North conquered the South? First, you have to understand the word "conquest" in international law. When you conquer a state you acquire the land; and those that were subject to the conquered state, then become subject to the conquers. The laws of the conquered state remain in force until the conquering state wishes to
change all or part of them. At the time of conquest the laws of the conquered state are subject to change or removal, which means the law no longer lies with the American people through the Constitution, but lies with the new sovereign. The Constitution no longer carries any power of its own, but drives its power from the new sovereign, the conqueror. The reason for this is the Constitution derived its power from the people, when they were defeated, so was the Constitution.
The following is the definition of Conquest: "The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms, exercised by an independent power which reduces the vanquished to submission to its empire.""The intention of the conqueror to retain the conquered territory is generally manifested by formal proclamation of annexation, and when this is combined with a recognized ability to retain the conquered territory, the transfer of sovereignty is complete. A treaty of peace based upon the principle of uti possidetis (q.v.) is formal recognition of conquest." "The effects of conquest are to confer upon the conquering state the public property of the conquered state, and to invest the former with the rights and obligations of the latter; treaties entered into by the conquered state with other states remain binding upon the annexing state, and the debts of the extinct state must be taken over by it. Conquest likewise invests the conquering state with sovereignty over the subjects of the conquered state. Among subjects of the conquered state are to be included persons domiciled in the conquered territory who remain there after the annexation. The people of the conquered state change their allegiance but not their relations to one another." Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. (U.S.) 176, 15 L. Ed. 891. "After the transfer of political jurisdiction to the conqueror the municipal laws of the territory continue in force until abrogated by the new sovereign." American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. (U.S.) 511, 7 L. Ed. 242. Conquest, In international Law. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary. What happened after the Civil War? Did not U.S. troops force the southern states to accept the Fourteenth Amendment? The laws of America, the Constitution were changed by the conquering government. Why? The main part I want you to see, as I said at the beginning of this paper, is watch the money and the commerce. The Fourteenth Amendment says the government debt can not be questioned. Why? Because now the king wants all the gold, silver and copper and the land. Which can easily be done by increasing the government debt and making the American people sureties for the debt. This has been done by the sleight of hand of lawyers and the bankers. The conquering state is known as a Belligerent, read the following quotes. Belligerency, is International Law "The status of de facto statehood attributed to a body of insurgents, by which their hostilities are legalized. Before they can be recognized as belligerents they must have some sort of political organization and be carrying on what is international law is regarded as legal war. There must be an armed struggle between two political bodies, each of which exercises de facto authority over persons within a determined territory, and commands an army which is prepared to observe the ordinary laws of war. It is not enough that the insurgents have an army; they must have an organized civil authority directing the army." "The exact point at which revolt or insurrection becomes belligerency is often extremely difficult to determine; and belligerents are not usually recognized by nations unless they have some strong reason or necessity for doing so, either because the territory where the belligerency is supposed to exist is contiguous to their own, or because the conflict is in some way affecting their commerce or the rights of their citizens...One of the most serious results of recognizing belligerency is that it frees the parent country from all responsibility for what takes place within the insurgent lined; Dana's Wheaton, note 15, page 35." Bouvier's Law Dictionary Belligerent, In International Law."As adj. and noun. Engaged in lawful war; a state so engaged. In plural. A body of insurgents who by reason of their temporary organized government are regarded as conducting lawful hostilities. Also, militia, corps of volunteers, and others, who although not part of the regular army of the state, are regarded as lawful combatants provided they observe the laws of war; 4 H.
C. 1907, arts, 1, 2." Bouvier's Law Dictionary. According to the International law no law has been broken. Read the following about military occupation, notice the third paragraph. After the Civil War, title to the land had not been completed to the conquers, but after 1933 it was. I will address this in a moment. In the last paragraph, it says the Commander-in- Chief governs the conquered state. The proof that this is the case today, is the U.S. flies the United States flag with a yellow fringe on three sides. According to the United States Code, Title 4, Sec. 1, the U.S. flag does not have a fringe on it.
The difference being one is a Constitutional flag, and the fringed flag is a military flag. The military flag means you are in a military occupation and are governed by the Commander-in-Chief in his executive capacity, not under any Constitutional authority. Read the following. Military Occupation "This at most gives the invader certain partial and limited rights of sovereignty. Until conquest, the sovereign rights of the original owner remain intact. Conquest gives the conqueror full rights of sovereignty and, retroactively, legalizes all acts done by him during military occupation. Its only essential is actual and exclusive possession, which must be effective."
"A conqueror may exercise governmental authority, but only when in actual possession of the enemy's country; and this will be exercised upon principles of international law; MacLeod v. U.S.,
229 U.S. 416, 33 Sup. Ct 955, 57 L. Ed. 1260."
"The occupant administers the government and may, strictly speaking, change the municipal law, but it is considered the duty of the occupant to make as few changes in the ordinary administration of the laws as possible, though he may proclaim martial law if necessary. He may occupy public land and buildings; he cannot alienate them so as to pass a good title, but a subsequent conquest would probably complete the title..." "Private lands and houses are usually exempt. Private movable property is exempt, though subject to contributions and requisitions. The former are payments of money, to be levied only by the commander-in-chief...Military necessity may require the destruction of private property, and hostile acts of communities or individuals may be punished in the same way. Property may be liable to seizure as booty on the field of battle, or when a town refuses to capitulate and is carried by assault. When military occupation ceases, the state of things which existed previously is restored under the fiction of postliminium (q.v.)"
"Territory acquired by war must, necessarily, be governed, in the first instance, by military power under the direction of the president, as commander-in-chief. Civil government can only be put in operation by the action of the appropriate political department of the government, at such time and in such degree as it may determine. It must take effect either by the action of the treaty making power, or by that of congress. So long as congress has not incorporated the territory into the United States, neither military occupation nor cession by treaty makes it domestic territory, in the sense of the revenue laws. Congress may establish a temporary government, which is not subject to all the restrictions of the constitution. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 Sup Ct.770, 45 L. Ed. 1088, per Gray, J., concurring in the opinion of the court." Bouvier's Law Dictionary Paragraph 1-3 of the definition of Military Occupation describes what took place during and after the Civil War. What took place during the Civil War and Post Civil War has been legal under international law. You should notice in paragraph 3, that at the end of the Civil War, title to the land was not complete, but the subsequent Conquest completed the title. When was the next Conquest? 1933, when the American people were alienated by our being declared enemies of the Conquer and by their declaring war against all Americans. Read the following quotes and (footnote 8).
The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens. A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency. In Title 12, in section 95b you'll find the following codification of the emergency war powers: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 USCS, 95a), are hereby approved and confirmed. (March 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)It is clear that the Bankrupt, defacto government of the united States, which is operating under the War Powers Act and Executive Orders; not the Constitution for the united States, has in effect issued under its Admiralty Law, Letters of Marque (piracy) to its private agencies IRS, ATF, FBI and DEA, with further enforcement by its officers in the Courts, local police and sheriffs, waged war against the American People and has classed Americans as enemy aliens.
The following definition is from BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY (P. 1934) of Letters of Marque, it says: "A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, or of the citizens or subjects of such state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the crew. A vessel to a friendly port, but armed for its own defence in case of attack by an enemy, is also called a letter of marque." Words and Phrases, Dictionary
By the law of nations, an enemy is defined to be "one with whom a nations at open war." When the sovereign ruler of a state declares war against another sovereign, it is understood the whole nation declares war against that other nation. All the subjects of one are enemies to all the subjects of the other, and during the existence of the war they continue enemies, in whatever country they may happen to be, "and all persons residing within the territory occupied by the belligerents, although they are in fact foreigners, are liable to be treated as enemies." Grinnan v. Edwards, 21 W.Va. 347, 357, quoting Vatt. Law.Nat.bk. 3, c. 69-71.
So we find ourselves enemies in our own country and subjects of a king that has conquered our land, with heavy taxation and no possibility of fair representation. The government has, through the laws of forfeiture, taken prize and booty for the king; under the Admiralty Law and Executive powers as declared by the Law of the Flag. None of which could have been done with the built in protection contained in the true Thirteenth Amendment, which has been kept from the American People. The fraudulent Amendments and legislation that followed the Civil War, bankrupted the American People and put the privateers (banksters) in power, and enforced by the promise of prize and booty to their partners in crime (government). The following is the definition of a tyrant.
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines tyrant as follows: "1. An absolute ruler; one who seized sovereignty illegally; a usurper. 2. a cruel oppressive ruler; a despot. 3. one who exercises his authority in an oppressive manner, a cruel master." "When I see that the right and means of absolute command are conferred on a people or upon a king, upon an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or republic, I recognize the germ of tyranny, and I journey onwards to a land of more helpful institutions." Alexis de Tocqueville, 1 DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, at 250 [Arlington House (1965)].
So we pick up with paragraph 4, which describes the taxation under Military Occupation and
that you are under Executive control and are bound under admiralty law by the contracts we
enter, including silent contracts and by Military Occupation.
Notice the last sentence in paragraph 5, Congress may establish a temporary government, which
is not subject to all the restrictions of the Constitution. See also Harvard Law Review - the Insular
Cases. This means you do not have a Constitutional government, you have a military dictatorship,
controlled by the President as Commander-in-Chief. What is another way you can check out what
I am telling you? Read the following quotes.
"...[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it
through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the
Constitu- tion...
In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. ...And in general the guaranties of the Consti- tution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable."
[Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
"The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that 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 instru- ment, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.
I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitu- tional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.
It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution."
[Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
A Military Flag
And to further confirm and understand the significance of what I have told you, you need to
understand the fringe on the United States flag. Read the following.
First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..
"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." (my note - of course when new states are admitted, new stars are added.)
A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says: "Placing of fringe on the
national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy." 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.
The president, as military commander, can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.
"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that
it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces."
From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4: "Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides...use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power." "...The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it, there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914. Don't be thrown by the fact they are talking about the sea, and that it doesn't apply to land. Admiralty law came on land in 1845 with the Act of 1845 by Congress. Next a court case: "Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.
I have had debates with folks that take great issue with what I have said, they dogmatically say the constitution is the law and the government is outside the law. I wish they were right, but they fail to see or understand that the American people have been conquered, unknowingly, but conquered all the same. That is why a judge will tell you not to bring the Constitution into his court, or a law dictionary, because he is the law, not the Constitution. You have only to read the previous Senates report on National Emergency, to understand the Constitution and our Constitutional form of government no longer exists. Further Evidence Social Security
I fail to understand how the American people could have been so dumbed down as to not see
that the Social Security system is fraudulent and that it is based on socialism, which is the
redistribution of wealth, right out of the communist manifesto. The Social Security system first, is fraud, it is insolvent and was never intended to be. It is used for a national identification number, and a requirement to receive benefits from the conquers (king). The Social Security system is made to look and act like insurance, all insurance is governed by admiralty law, which is the kings way of binding those involved with commerce with him. "The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of Social Insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress' power to "spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'," Helvering vs. Davis [301 U.S., at 640]
"My judgment accordingly is, that policies of insurance are within... the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States." Federal Judge Story, in DELOVIO VS. BOIT, 7 Federal Cases, #3776, at page 444 (1815).
You need to know and understand what contribution means in F.I C. A., Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Read the following definition.
Contribution. Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Under principle of "contribution," a tort-feasor against whom a judgement is rendered is entitled to recover proportional shares of judgement from other joint tort- feasor whose negligence contributed to the injury and who were also liable to the plaintiff. (cite omitted) The share of a loss payable by an insure when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss. The insurer's share of a loss under a coinsurance or similar provision. The sharing of a loss or payment among several. The act of any one or several of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties, etc., in reimbursing one of their number who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.) Thereby making you obligated for the national debt. The Social Security system is one of the contractual nexus' between you and the king. Because you are involved in the kings commerce and have asked voluntarily for his protection, you have accomplished the following. You have admitted that you are equally responsible for having caused the national debt and that you are a wrong doer, as defined by the above legal definition. You have admitted to being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, who only has civil rights granted by the king. By being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, you have agreed that you do not have standing in court to question the national debt. Keep in mind this is beyond the status of our country and people, which I covered earlier in this paper. We are in this system of law because of the conquest of our country. Congress has transferred its Constitutional obligation of coining money to the federal reserve, the representatives of the king, this began after the Civil War and the overturning of the U.S. Constitution, as a result of CONGEST. You have used this fiat money without objection, which is a commercial benefit, supplied by the kings bankers. Fiat money has no real value, other than the faith in it, and you CANNOT pay a debt with fiat money, because it is a debt instrument. A federal reserve note is a promise to pay and is only evidence of debt. The benefit you have received is you are allowed to discharge your debt, which means you pass on financial servitude to someone else. The someone else is our children.
When you go to the grocery store and hand the clerk a fifty dollar federal reserve note you have stolen the groceries and passed fifty dollars of debt to the seller. Americans try to acquire as much of this fiat money as they can. If Americans were aware of this; it wouldn't matter to them, because they don't care if the merchandise is stolen as long as it is legal. But what happens if the system fails? Those with the most fiat money or real property, which was obtained with fiat money will be forfeited to the king, everything that was obtained with this fiat money reverts back to the king temporary, I will explain in the conclusion of this paper. Because use of his fiat money is a benefit, supplied by the king's bankers; it all transfers back to the king. The king's claim to the increase in this country comes from the original Charter of 1606. But, it is all hidden, black is white and white is black, wealth is actually debt and financial slavery. For those that do not have a Social Security number or think they have rescinded it, you are no better off. As far as the king is concerned you are subject to him also. Why? Well, just to list a couple of reasons other than conquest. You use his money and as I said before, this is discharging debt, without prosecution. You use the goods and services that were obtained by this fiat money, to enrich your life style and sustain yourself. You drive or travel, which ever definition you want to use, on the king's highways and roads for pleasure and to earn a living; meaning you are involved in the king's commerce. On top of these reasons which are based on received benefits, this country HAS BEEN CONQUERED! I know a lot of patriots won't like this. Your (our) argument has been that the government has and is operating outside of the law (United States Constitution). Believe me I don't like sounding like the devils advocate, but as far as international law goes; and the laws that govern War between countries, the king/queen of England rule this country, first by financial servitude and then by actual Conquest and Military Occupation. The Civil War was the beginning of the Conquest, as evidenced by the Fourteenth Amendment. This Amendment did several things, as already mentioned. It created the only citizenship available to the conquered and declared that these citizens had no standing in any court to challenge the monetary policies of the new government. Why? So the king would always receive his gain from his Commercial venture. The Amendment also eliminated your use of natural rights and gave the Conquered civil rights. The Conquered are governed by public policy, instead of Republic of self-government under God Almighty. Your argument that this can't be, is frivolous and without merit, the evidence is conclusive. Nothing has changed since before the Revolutionary War. All persons whose activities in King's Commerce are such that they fall under this marine-like environment, are into an invisible Admiralty Jurisdiction Contract. Admiralty Jurisdiction is the KING'S COMMERCE of the High Seas, and if the King is a party to the sea-based Commerce (such as by the King having financed your ship, or the ship is carrying the King's guns), then that Commerce is properly governed by the special rules applicable to Admiralty Jurisdiction. But as for that slice of Commerce going on out on the High Seas without the King as a party, that Commerce is called Maritime Jurisdiction, and so Maritime is the private Commerce that transpires in a marine environment. At least, that distinction between Admiralty and Maritime is the way things once were, but no more. George Mercier, Invisible Contracts, 1984. What Lincoln and Jefferson said about the true American danger was very prophetic. "All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. Abraham Lincoln "Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless... the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion. Thomas Jefferson Below are the political platforms of the Democrats and the Republicans, as you can see there is no difference between the two, plain socialism. They are both leading America to a World government, just as Cornwallis said, and that government will be the British empire or promoted by the British. "We have built foundations for the security of those who are faced with the hazards of unemployment and old age; for the orphaned, the crippled, and the blind. On the foundation of the Social Security Act we are determined to erect a structure of economic security for all our people, making sure that this benefit shall keep step with the ever increasing capacity of America to provide a high standard of living for all its citizens." DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM OF 1936, at page 360, infra. "Real security will be possible only when our productive capacity is sufficient to furnish a decent standard of living for all American families and to provide a surplus for future needs and contingencies. For the attainment of that ultimate objective, we look to the energy, self-reliance and character of our people, and to our system of free enterprise.
"Society has an obligation to promote the security of the people, by affording some measure of protection against involuntary unemployment and dependency in old age. The NEW DEAL policies, while purporting to provide social security, have, in fact, endangered it. "We propose a system of old age security, based upon the following principles: 1. We approve a PAY AS YOU GO policy, which requires of each generation the
support of the aged and the determination of what is just and adequate.
2. Every American citizen over 65 should receive a supplemental payment necessary to
provide a minimum income sufficient to protect him or her from want.
3. Each state and territory, upon complying with simple and general minimum standards,
should receive from the Federal Government a graduated contribution in proportion to its own,
up to a fixed maximum.
4. To make this program consistent with sound fiscal policy the Federal revenues for this
purpose must be provided from the proceeds of a direct tax widely distributed. All will be
benefitted and all should contribute.
"We propose to encourage adoption by the states and territories of honest and practical measures for meeting the problems of employment insurance. "The unemployment insurance and old age annuity of the present Social Security Act are unworkable and deny benefits to about two-thirds of our adult population, including professional men and women and all engaged in agriculture and domestic service, and the self-employed, while imposing heavy tax burdens upon all."
- REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM OF 1936, at page 366.
Both PLATFORMS appear in NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS -- 1840 TO 1972; compiled
by Ronald Miller [University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois (1973)
CONCLUSION Jesus gave us the most profound warning and advise of all time, Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed by a lack of knowledge." This being our understanding and spiritual development in His Word. When applied to the many facets of life, His Word exposes all of life's pit falls. Jesus Christ's Word covers all aspects of life. The working class during the 1700's were far more educated than now, but this was still not enough to protect them from the secret subterfuge practiced by the lawyers and bankers. Only with understanding of Jesus Christ's Word, can the evil application of man's law be exposed an understood for what it is. This is why Jesus Christ also warned of the beguilement of the lawyers and the deceit and deception they practice. Another reason, the working class have been unable to understand their enslavement, is because of the time spent working for a living. At wages supplied by the upper class, sufficient to live and even prosper, but never enough to attain upper class status. This is basic class warfare. This system is protected by the upper class controlling public education, to limit and focus the working class's knowledge, to maintain class separation. What does this have to do with this paper? Everything! This is the reason our upper class fore fathers submitted to the king in the Treaty of 1783. After this Treaty and up to the Civil War, the working class were busy making this the greatest Country in the history of the world. You see they believed they were free, a freeman will work much harder than a man that is subject or a slave. As a whole, the working class were not paying attention to what the government was doing, including its Treaties and laws. This allowed time for the banking procedures and laws to be put in place over time, while the nation slept, so the nation could be conquered during the Civil War. The only way to regain this county is with the re-education of the working class, so they can make informed decisions and vote the mis-managers of our government out of office. We could then reverse the post Civil War socialist laws and the one world government laws, that have been gradually put in place since the Civil War. Until the defeat of America is recognized, victory will never be attainable. Only through reliance by faith on Jesus Christ and the teaching of His Kingdom will we realize our freedom. As I said earlier, just as this Country has been conquered, when Jesus Christ returns he conquers all nations and takes possession of His Kingdom and rules them with a rod of iron (Rev. 11:15-18). His right of ownership is enforced by THE LAW, God Almighty.......
STUDY ALL THE INFORMATION FROM THESE SITES HERE AND HERE
August 9, 1998
James Montgomery"
..Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee OnThe Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this so.
Folks after reading the above about our country is under a national emergency I found this about our flag. IT is currently flying with the stripes flying horizontally which means that we are at war. IF we were at peace then the strips would be vertical. YES there are two different ways our flag can be configured. Since it is apparent that our nation has been at war for most of it's existence most all of us have never seen the stripes vertical. Go here to learn something about this.
SURVEY OF THE LAW OF EXPATRIATION
4. It was once thought that, because the Naturalization Clause contained no express provision for Congressional power to expatriate a U.S. citizen against his will, no such authority existed. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), "[a] naturalized citizen . . . becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is, to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual." Id. at 827. In Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), the Court found an inherent federal power, beyond the express terms of the Constitution, to forcibly expatriate U.S. citizens, as a necessary attribute of sovereignty. See id. at 57 (concluding that power to expatriate necessarily arose out of federal power to conduct foreign relations (citing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936))). That view was abrogated, however, in Afroyim. See Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 257 ("This power cannot, as Perez indicated, be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty possessed by all nations. . . . Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones.").
Under the Court's current jurisprudence, the Naturalization Clause empowers Congress to expatriate U.S. citizens without obtaining their consent, but only with respect to naturalized citizens who fall outside the protection of the Citizenship Clause. Individuals not protected by the Citizenship Clause acquire U.S. citizenship, if at all, solely by an act of Congress enacted pursuant to the Naturalization Clause, and not pursuant to the Constitution itself. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971) (Citizenship Clause does "'not touch[] the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization'") (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898)); see also note 6. With respect to such individuals, Congress's power under the Naturalization Clause includes the power to set conditions subsequent to naturalization, failure of which may result in expatriation without consent. See Bellei, 401 U.S. at 834 ("it does not make good constitutional sense, or comport with logic, to say, on the one hand, that Congress [in exercising its authority under the Naturalization Clause] may impose a condition precedent, with no constitutional complication, and yet be powerless to impose precisely the same condition subsequent").
5. By its express terms, the Citizenship Clause does not protect persons who acquire U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born abroad to parents, at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen, because such persons are not "born or naturalized in the United States." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 827 (1971).
6. Afroyim, the Court had held precisely the opposite view - namely, that nothing in the Constitution prevents U.S. citizens from forfeiting their citizenship, against their will, for voluntarily engaging in certain kinds of conduct, such as voting in a foreign election. That view was restated most recently in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958). See, e.g., id. at 58 n.3; id. at 61; see also Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 312 (1915);Savorgnan, 338 U.S. at 499-500. Three justices who dissented in Perez, however, concluded that the Citizenship Clause prohibits expatriation absent the citizen's assent. See Perez, 356 U.S. at 66 (Warren, C.J., dissenting). In 1967, the Court expressly overruled Perez by a 5-4 vote in Afroyim. See Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 257 ("we reject the idea expressed in Perez that . . . Congress has any general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent"); id. at 262-63 (noting that primary purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to prevent Congress from stripping blacks of U.S. citizenship). Not a single justice suggested a return to Perez when the Court revisited the issue of expatriation in 1980. See Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980).
7. The statute's list of acts of expatriation appears to be exhaustive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1488 (2000) ("The loss of nationality under this part shall result solely from the performance by a national of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in this part."). But see Kawakita, 343 U.S. at 731-32 (declining to resolve whether other acts of expatriation may be available).
8. Additional restrictions on expatriation, not apparently relevant here, are enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1483 (2000). First, "[e]xcept as provided in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 1481(a) of this title, no national of the United States can lose United States nationality under this chapter while within the United States or any of its outlying possessions, but loss of nationality shall result from the performance within the United States or any of its outlying possessions of any of the acts or the fulfillment of any of the conditions specified in this Part if and when the national thereafter takes up a residence outside the United States and its outlying possessions." 8 U.S.C. § 1483(a). Second, "[a] national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to United States nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have lost United States nationality by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of section 1481(a) of this title." 8 U.S.C. § 1483(b).
9. Federal law establishes two separate mechanisms through which an individual may formally renounce U.S. citizenship. First, a citizen may make a formal renunciation of U.S. nationality "before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(5) (emphasis added). See also 22 C.F.R. § 50.50(a) (2001) ("A person desiring to renounce U.S. nationality under section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(5)] shall appear before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in the manner and form prescribed by the Department."). By its terms, renunciation under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(5) can only occur outside the United States. For purposes of this provision,
[t]he State Department has issued a form, "Oath of Renunciation of the Nationality of the United States" (the "oath") for the purpose of enabling formal renunciation to occur. The renunciant must sign the oath and swear to its contents. The renunciant must swear that "I desire to make a formal renunciation of my American nationality, as provided by section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(5)] and pursuant thereto I hereby absolutely and entirely renounce my United States nationality together with all rights and privileges and all duties of allegiance and fidelity thereunto pertaining." The oath is accompanied by a "Statement of Understanding" (the "statement"), which the renunciant must also sign. The statement declares, in part, that "Upon renouncing my citizenship I will become an alien with respect to the United States, subject to all the laws and procedures of the United States regarding entry and control of aliens," that "If I do not possess the nationality of any country other than the United States, upon my renunciation I will become a stateless person and may face extreme difficulties in traveling internationally and entering most countries." The statement also permits or invites the renunciant to "make a separate written explanation of my reasons for renouncing my United States citizenship." The executed papers are then forwarded to the State Department together with a diplomatic or consular report.
Letter for Catherine W. Brown, Assistant Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs, Department of State, from Todd David Peterson, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Voluntary Expatriation of Puerto Rican Nationalists, at 1-2 (Oct. 31, 1997).
Alternatively, a citizen may formally renounce "in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6). This provision appears to permit formal renunciation within the United States. Although there is currently no regulation for accepting a formal renunciation within the United States pursuant to this provision, we believe that no such regulation is necessary. The statute only states that the Attorney General shall prescribe a "form" for renunciation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6). We see no reason why such a form could not be produced at the time a U.S. citizen seeks renunciation pursuant to that provision.
10. Under federal law, "[w]henever a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States has reason to believe that a person while in a foreign state has lost his United States nationality under [8 U.S.C. §§ 1481-1489], he shall certify the facts upon which such belief is based to the Department of State, in writing, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State [currently codified at 22 C.F.R. §§ 50.40(b)-(e), 50.50(b), 50.51 (2001)]." 8 U.S.C. § 1501 (2000). See also 22 C.F.R. §§ 50.40(c) (2001) (same).
For purposes of these provisions, a "consular officer" is "any consular, diplomatic, or other officer or employee of the United States designated under regulations prescribed under authority contained in this chapter, for the purpose of issuing immigrant or nonimmigrant visas or, when used in subchapter III of this chapter [8 U.S.C. § 1401-1504] for the purpose of adjudicating nationality." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(9) (2000). The regulations governing the adjudication of nationality, 22 C.F.R. §§ 50.1 to 50.51, do not appear to define "consular officer." According to the regulations governing the issuance of immigrant or nonimmigrant visas (which do not apply to the regulations governing the adjudication of nationality), the term "[c]onsular officer . . . includes commissioned consular officers and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, and such other officers as the Deputy Assistant Secretary may designate for the purpose of issuing nonimmigrant and immigrant visas, but does not include a consular agent, an attache or an assistant attache. . . . [T]he term 'other officers' includes civil service visa examiners employed by the Department of State for duty at visa-issuing offices abroad, upon certification by the chief of the consular section under whose direction such examiners are employed that the examiners are qualified by knowledge and experience to perform the functions of a consular officer in the issuance or refusal of visas. . . . The assignment by the Department of any foreign service officer to a diplomatic or consular office abroad in a position administratively designated as requiring, solely, partially, or principally, the performance of consular functions, and the initiation of a request for a consular commission, constitutes designation of the officer as a 'consular officer' within the meaning of [8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(9)]." 22 C.F.R. § 40.1(d) (2001).
11. In addition, any United States Attorney can file an action in federal court "for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting [a] person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization" previously granted to a person seeking U.S. citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) (2000). Such denaturalization actions are appropriate where "such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation," and thus are not directly related to expatriation. Id. Nevertheless, expatriation issues have been squarely raised during the course of denaturalization proceedings, for example, to explain the circumstances causing a natural born citizen to seek naturalization in the first place. See, e.g., Schiffer, 831 F. Supp. at 1169.
12. Mr. Kawakita had been tried and convicted of treason for beating and inflicting other acts of cruelty upon American prisoners of war held in Japan. See id. at 737-40. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction after rejecting Kawakita's contention that he was no longer a U.S. citizen and therefore did not owe allegiance to the United States, one of the elements of a treason offense. See id. at 722. As noted above, Kawakita failed to persuade the Court that his expression of allegiance to Japan constituted grounds for expatriation. In addition, the Court rejected Kawakita's argument that he had effectively "serv[ed] in the Japanese armed services," another statutorily enumerated act of expatriation. Id. at 727 (quotations omitted). The Court instead found that Kawakita was merely an interpreter employed by a private Japanese company, and not a soldier in the Japanese army, for purposes of the expatriation statute. See id. ("Though petitioner took orders from the military, he was not a soldier in the armed services . . . . His employment was as an interpreter for . . . a private company.").
13. Assuming that the Taliban represents the "armed forces" of Afghanistan for purposes of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, the President has concluded that the Taliban does not satisfy at least three of the four requirements of lawful combat, and therefore that Taliban fighters are ineligible for treatment as prisoners of war under the Convention. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Status of Taliban Forces Under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, at 4-7 (Feb. 7, 2002).
AGAIN, I AM THE MESSENGER, NOT THE AUTHOR OF ANY OF THIS MATERIAL. I AM NOT THAT SMART, SO IF YOU HAVE AN GRIPS WITH IT ALL PLEASE POINT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE' "INFORMER" AND JAMES MONTGOMERY. I DO NOT GET ANY BENEFIT PAYMENT OR COMMISSION FROM THEM FOR THIS, ONLY THE PLEASURE OF TELLING FOLKS ABOUT THE ABOUT BS AND CORRUPTION OF WHAT IS GOING ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS OF OUR "GOVERNMENTS" THAT WE HAVE LOST CONTROL OVER AND THAT WE NEED TO GET CONTROL OF IT SOMEHOW AND WE NEED TO RALLY SOME SMART PEOPLE ACROSS THIS NATION AND WAKE THE SLEEPING SHEEPLE SOON SO THAT WE MAY STOP THE MADNESS FOR OUR CHILDREN'S, GRANDCHILDREN'S AND THEIR FUTURE GENERATIONS SAKE! IF WE DON'T, THEY ARE DOOMED TO A WORLD OF HELL, AND DAMNATION!! I'M NOT BLOWING SMOKE!! WHEN YOU LEARN WHAT I KNOW YOU WILL HAVE MORE URGENCY ABOUT THIS!! SEE THIS BLOG!!
That's right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because our status is far worse now than then. I'll explain. Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the Title of nobility or honor.
Another wrench that is thrown into the gears is, "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has
been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in
effect four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition
to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are
also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16,
1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared
by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.
These proclamations give force to 470
provisions of Federal law [hundreds
more since 1973, particularly in the Clinton administration since Jan 21, 1993].
These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers,
ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American
citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers,
taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference
to normal Constitutional processes.
Under the powers delegated by these
statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of
production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial
law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the
operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of
particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens." http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html
There was however, no measurable penalty for violation of the above Sections, Congress saw
this as a great threat to the freedom of Americans, and our Republican form of government. In
January 1810 Senator Reed proposed the Thirteenth Amendment, and on April 26, 1810 was
passed by the Senate 26 to 1 (1st-2nd session, p. 670) and by the House 87 to 3 on May 1, 1810
(2nd session, p. 2050) and submitted to the seventeen states for ratification. The Amendment reads as follows: "If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office of emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." From An "American Dictionary of the English Language, 1st Edition," Noah Webster, (1828) defines nobility as: "3. The qualities which constitute distinction of rank in civil society, according to the customs or laws of the country; that eminence or dignity which a man derives from birth or title conferred, and which places him in an order above common men."; and, "4. The persons collectively who enjoy rank above commoners; the peerage."
The fore-mentioned Sections in the Constitution for the united States, and the above proposed Thirteenth Amendment sought to prohibit the above definition, which would give any advantage or privilege to some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Thirteen of the seventeen states listed below understood the importance of this Amendment.
1788 Massachusetts Feb. 27, 1812
1789 North Carolina Dec. 23, 1811
1788 Georgia Dec. 13, 1811
1796 Tennessee Nov. 21, 1811
1791 Vermont Oct. 24, 1811
1787 New Jersey Feb., 13, 1811
1787 Pennsylvania Feb. 6, 1811
1787 Delaware Feb. 2, 1811
1803 Ohio Jan. 31, 1811
1792 Kentucky Jan. 31, 1811
1788 Maryland Dec. 25, 1810
Date Voted
Against the
Amendment
Date voted the
State Amendment Date Admitted
to the Union
1790 Rhode Island Setp. 15, 1814
1788 South Carolina Dec. 7, 1813
1788 Connecticut May 1813
1788 New York Mar. 12, 1811
1788 Virginia Mar. 12, 1819
On March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc." file, p. 299 for micro- film)"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..."The official day of ratification was March 12, 1819, this was the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code. Virginia ordered 4,000 copies, almost triple their usual order. Word of Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the states and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio published the new Amendment in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the new Amendment to be printed for use in the public schools, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana published the new Amendment in the Indiana Revised Laws, of 1831 on P. 20. The Northwest Territories published the new Amendment in 1833; Ohio published the new Amendment again in 1831 and in 1833. Connecticut, one of the states that voted against the new Amendment published the new Amendment in 1835. Wisconsin Territory published the new Amendment in 1839; Iowa Territory published the new Amendment in 1843; Ohio published the new Amendment again, in 1848; Kansas published the new Amendment in 1855; and Nebraska Territory published the new Amendment six years in a row from 1855 to 1860. Colorado Territory published the new Amendment in 1865 and again 1867, in the 1867 printing, the present Thirteenth Amendment (slavery Amendment) was listed as the Fourteenth Amendment. The repeated reprinting of the Amended united States Constitution is conclusive evidence of its passage. Also, as evidence of the new Thirteenth Amendments impending passage; on December 2, 1817 John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, wrote to Buck (an attorney) regarding the position Buck had been assigned. The letter reads:"...if it should be the opinion of this Government that the acceptance on your part of the Commission under which it was granted did not interfere with your citizenship. It is the opinion of the Executive that under the 13th amendment to the constitution by the acceptance of such an appointment from any foreign Government, a citizen of the United States ceases to enjoy that character, and becomes incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the United States or either of them... J.Q.A. By virtue of these titles and honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of citizens. A majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. After the War of 1812 was concluded the Treaty of Ghent was signed and ratified (footnote 6). In Article 4 of the Treaty, the United States gained what was already given in the Treaty of Paris 1783, namely islands off the U.S. Coast. Also, two men were to be given the power to decide theborders and disagreements, if they could not, the power was to be given to an outside sovereign power and their decision was final and considered conclusive. In Article 9 it is admitted there are citizens and subjects in America. As you have seen, the two terms are interchangeable synonymous. In Article 10 you will see where the idea for the overthrow of this country came from and on what issue. The issue raised by England was slavery and it was nurtured by the king's; emissaries behind the scenes. This would finally lead to the Civil War, even though the Supreme Court had declared the states and their citizens property rights could not be infringed on by the United States government or Congress. This was further declared by the following Presidential;quotes, where they declared to violate the states rights would violate the U.S. Constitution. Also, history shows that slavery would not have existed much longer in the Southern states public sentiment was changing and slavery was quickly disappearing The Civil War was about destroying property rights and the U.S. Constitution which supported these rights. Read the following quotes of Presidents just before the Civil War: I believe that involuntary servitude, as it exists in different States of this Confederacy, is recognized by the Constitution. I believe that it stands like any other admitted right, and that the States where it exists are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions." Franklin Pierce Inaugural Address, March 4, 1853 - Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol,5. "The whole Territorial question being thus settled upon the principle of popular sovereignty-a principle as ancient as free government itself-everything of a practical nature has been decided. No other question remains for adjustment, because all agree that under the Constitution slavery in the States is beyond the reach of any human power except that of the respective States themselves wherein it exists." James Buchanan Inaugural Address, March 4, 1857 - Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 5. "I cordially congratulate you upon the final settlement by the Supreme Court of the United States of the question of slavery in the Territories, which had presented an aspect so truly formidable at the commencement of my Administration. The right has been established of every citizen to take his property of any kind, including slaves, into the common Territories belonging equally to all the States of the Confederacy, and to have it protected there under the Federal Constitution. Neither Congress nor a Territorial legislature nor any human power has any authority to annul or impair this vested right. The supreme judicial tribunal of the country, which is a coordinate branch of the Government, has sanctioned and affirmed these principles of constitutional law, so manifestly just in themselves and so well calculated to promote peace and harmony among the States." James Buchanan, Third Annual Message, December 19, 1859 - Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 5. So there is no misunderstanding I am not rearguing slavery. Slavery is morally wrong and contrary to God Almighty's Law. In this divisive issue, the true attack was on our natural rights and on the Constitution. The core of the attack was on our right to possess allodial property. Our God given right to own property in allodial was taken away by conquest of the Civil War. If you are free this right cannot be taken away. The opposite of free is slave or subject, we were allowed to believe we were free for about 70 years. Then the king said enough, and had the slavery issue pushed to the front by the northern press, which so formed northern public opinion, that they were willing to send their sons to die in the Civil War. The southern States were not fighting so much for the slave issue, but for the right to own property, any property. These property rights were granted by the king in the Treaty of 1783, knowing they would soon be forfeited by the American people through ignorance. Do you think you own your house? If you were to stop paying taxes, federal or state, you would soon find out that you were just being allowed to live and pay rent for this house. The rent being the taxes to the king, who supplied the benefit of commerce. A free man not under a monarch, democracy, dictatorship or socialist government, but is under a republican form of government would not and could not have his property taken. Why! The king's tax would not and could not be levied. If the Americans had been paying attention the first 70 years to the subterfuge and corruption of the Constitution and government representatives, instead of chasing the money supplied by the king, the Conquest of this country during the Civil War could have been avoided. George Washington had vision during the Revolutionary War, concerning the Civil War. You need to read it. Footnote 7
Civil War and The Conquest that followed
The government and press propaganda that the War was to free the black people from slavery is ridiculous, once you understand the Civil War Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The black people are just as much slaves today as before the Civil War just as the white people are, and also we find ourselves subjects of the king/queen of England. The only thing that changed for black people is they changed masters and were granted a few rights which I might add can be taken away anytime the government chooses. Since the 1930's the black people have been paid reparations to buy off their silence, in other words, keep the slaves on the plantation working. I do not say this to shock or come across as prejudiced, because I'm not. Here's what Russell Means said, for those that don't remember who he is, he was the father in the movie called, "Last Of The Mohicans". Russell Means said "until the white man is free, we will never be free" he is referring to are the Indians. There has never been a truer statement, however the problem is the white people are not aware of their enslavement. At the risk of being redundant; to set the record straight, because Lord only knows what will be said about what I just said regarding black people, I believe that if you are born in this country you are equal, period. Forget the empty promises of civil rights, what about you unalienable natural rights under God Almighty. All Americans are feudal tenants on the land, allowed to rent the property they live on as long as the king gets his cut.What about self-determination, or being able to own allodial title to property, which means the king cannot take your property for failure to pay a tax. Which means you did not own it to begin with. The king allows you to use the material goods and land. Again this is financial servitude. "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts payable in Gold" written in 1933. The king controlled the government by the time the North won the Civil War, through the use of lawyers that called the shots behind the scenes, just as they do now and well placed subjects in the United States government. This would not have been possible if not for England destroying our documents in 1812 and the covering up of state documents of the original 13th Amendment. According to International law, what took place when the North conquered the South? First, you have to understand the word "conquest" in international law. When you conquer a state you acquire the land; and those that were subject to the conquered state, then become subject to the conquers. The laws of the conquered state remain in force until the conquering state wishes to
change all or part of them. At the time of conquest the laws of the conquered state are subject to change or removal, which means the law no longer lies with the American people through the Constitution, but lies with the new sovereign. The Constitution no longer carries any power of its own, but drives its power from the new sovereign, the conqueror. The reason for this is the Constitution derived its power from the people, when they were defeated, so was the Constitution.
The following is the definition of Conquest: "The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms, exercised by an independent power which reduces the vanquished to submission to its empire.""The intention of the conqueror to retain the conquered territory is generally manifested by formal proclamation of annexation, and when this is combined with a recognized ability to retain the conquered territory, the transfer of sovereignty is complete. A treaty of peace based upon the principle of uti possidetis (q.v.) is formal recognition of conquest." "The effects of conquest are to confer upon the conquering state the public property of the conquered state, and to invest the former with the rights and obligations of the latter; treaties entered into by the conquered state with other states remain binding upon the annexing state, and the debts of the extinct state must be taken over by it. Conquest likewise invests the conquering state with sovereignty over the subjects of the conquered state. Among subjects of the conquered state are to be included persons domiciled in the conquered territory who remain there after the annexation. The people of the conquered state change their allegiance but not their relations to one another." Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. (U.S.) 176, 15 L. Ed. 891. "After the transfer of political jurisdiction to the conqueror the municipal laws of the territory continue in force until abrogated by the new sovereign." American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. (U.S.) 511, 7 L. Ed. 242. Conquest, In international Law. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary. What happened after the Civil War? Did not U.S. troops force the southern states to accept the Fourteenth Amendment? The laws of America, the Constitution were changed by the conquering government. Why? The main part I want you to see, as I said at the beginning of this paper, is watch the money and the commerce. The Fourteenth Amendment says the government debt can not be questioned. Why? Because now the king wants all the gold, silver and copper and the land. Which can easily be done by increasing the government debt and making the American people sureties for the debt. This has been done by the sleight of hand of lawyers and the bankers. The conquering state is known as a Belligerent, read the following quotes. Belligerency, is International Law "The status of de facto statehood attributed to a body of insurgents, by which their hostilities are legalized. Before they can be recognized as belligerents they must have some sort of political organization and be carrying on what is international law is regarded as legal war. There must be an armed struggle between two political bodies, each of which exercises de facto authority over persons within a determined territory, and commands an army which is prepared to observe the ordinary laws of war. It is not enough that the insurgents have an army; they must have an organized civil authority directing the army." "The exact point at which revolt or insurrection becomes belligerency is often extremely difficult to determine; and belligerents are not usually recognized by nations unless they have some strong reason or necessity for doing so, either because the territory where the belligerency is supposed to exist is contiguous to their own, or because the conflict is in some way affecting their commerce or the rights of their citizens...One of the most serious results of recognizing belligerency is that it frees the parent country from all responsibility for what takes place within the insurgent lined; Dana's Wheaton, note 15, page 35." Bouvier's Law Dictionary Belligerent, In International Law."As adj. and noun. Engaged in lawful war; a state so engaged. In plural. A body of insurgents who by reason of their temporary organized government are regarded as conducting lawful hostilities. Also, militia, corps of volunteers, and others, who although not part of the regular army of the state, are regarded as lawful combatants provided they observe the laws of war; 4 H.
C. 1907, arts, 1, 2." Bouvier's Law Dictionary. According to the International law no law has been broken. Read the following about military occupation, notice the third paragraph. After the Civil War, title to the land had not been completed to the conquers, but after 1933 it was. I will address this in a moment. In the last paragraph, it says the Commander-in- Chief governs the conquered state. The proof that this is the case today, is the U.S. flies the United States flag with a yellow fringe on three sides. According to the United States Code, Title 4, Sec. 1, the U.S. flag does not have a fringe on it.
The difference being one is a Constitutional flag, and the fringed flag is a military flag. The military flag means you are in a military occupation and are governed by the Commander-in-Chief in his executive capacity, not under any Constitutional authority. Read the following. Military Occupation "This at most gives the invader certain partial and limited rights of sovereignty. Until conquest, the sovereign rights of the original owner remain intact. Conquest gives the conqueror full rights of sovereignty and, retroactively, legalizes all acts done by him during military occupation. Its only essential is actual and exclusive possession, which must be effective."
"A conqueror may exercise governmental authority, but only when in actual possession of the enemy's country; and this will be exercised upon principles of international law; MacLeod v. U.S.,
229 U.S. 416, 33 Sup. Ct 955, 57 L. Ed. 1260."
"The occupant administers the government and may, strictly speaking, change the municipal law, but it is considered the duty of the occupant to make as few changes in the ordinary administration of the laws as possible, though he may proclaim martial law if necessary. He may occupy public land and buildings; he cannot alienate them so as to pass a good title, but a subsequent conquest would probably complete the title..." "Private lands and houses are usually exempt. Private movable property is exempt, though subject to contributions and requisitions. The former are payments of money, to be levied only by the commander-in-chief...Military necessity may require the destruction of private property, and hostile acts of communities or individuals may be punished in the same way. Property may be liable to seizure as booty on the field of battle, or when a town refuses to capitulate and is carried by assault. When military occupation ceases, the state of things which existed previously is restored under the fiction of postliminium (q.v.)"
"Territory acquired by war must, necessarily, be governed, in the first instance, by military power under the direction of the president, as commander-in-chief. Civil government can only be put in operation by the action of the appropriate political department of the government, at such time and in such degree as it may determine. It must take effect either by the action of the treaty making power, or by that of congress. So long as congress has not incorporated the territory into the United States, neither military occupation nor cession by treaty makes it domestic territory, in the sense of the revenue laws. Congress may establish a temporary government, which is not subject to all the restrictions of the constitution. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 Sup Ct.770, 45 L. Ed. 1088, per Gray, J., concurring in the opinion of the court." Bouvier's Law Dictionary Paragraph 1-3 of the definition of Military Occupation describes what took place during and after the Civil War. What took place during the Civil War and Post Civil War has been legal under international law. You should notice in paragraph 3, that at the end of the Civil War, title to the land was not complete, but the subsequent Conquest completed the title. When was the next Conquest? 1933, when the American people were alienated by our being declared enemies of the Conquer and by their declaring war against all Americans. Read the following quotes and (footnote 8).
The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens. A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency. In Title 12, in section 95b you'll find the following codification of the emergency war powers: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 USCS, 95a), are hereby approved and confirmed. (March 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)It is clear that the Bankrupt, defacto government of the united States, which is operating under the War Powers Act and Executive Orders; not the Constitution for the united States, has in effect issued under its Admiralty Law, Letters of Marque (piracy) to its private agencies IRS, ATF, FBI and DEA, with further enforcement by its officers in the Courts, local police and sheriffs, waged war against the American People and has classed Americans as enemy aliens.
The following definition is from BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY (P. 1934) of Letters of Marque, it says: "A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, or of the citizens or subjects of such state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the crew. A vessel to a friendly port, but armed for its own defence in case of attack by an enemy, is also called a letter of marque." Words and Phrases, Dictionary
By the law of nations, an enemy is defined to be "one with whom a nations at open war." When the sovereign ruler of a state declares war against another sovereign, it is understood the whole nation declares war against that other nation. All the subjects of one are enemies to all the subjects of the other, and during the existence of the war they continue enemies, in whatever country they may happen to be, "and all persons residing within the territory occupied by the belligerents, although they are in fact foreigners, are liable to be treated as enemies." Grinnan v. Edwards, 21 W.Va. 347, 357, quoting Vatt. Law.Nat.bk. 3, c. 69-71.
So we find ourselves enemies in our own country and subjects of a king that has conquered our land, with heavy taxation and no possibility of fair representation. The government has, through the laws of forfeiture, taken prize and booty for the king; under the Admiralty Law and Executive powers as declared by the Law of the Flag. None of which could have been done with the built in protection contained in the true Thirteenth Amendment, which has been kept from the American People. The fraudulent Amendments and legislation that followed the Civil War, bankrupted the American People and put the privateers (banksters) in power, and enforced by the promise of prize and booty to their partners in crime (government). The following is the definition of a tyrant.
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines tyrant as follows: "1. An absolute ruler; one who seized sovereignty illegally; a usurper. 2. a cruel oppressive ruler; a despot. 3. one who exercises his authority in an oppressive manner, a cruel master." "When I see that the right and means of absolute command are conferred on a people or upon a king, upon an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or republic, I recognize the germ of tyranny, and I journey onwards to a land of more helpful institutions." Alexis de Tocqueville, 1 DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, at 250 [Arlington House (1965)].
So we pick up with paragraph 4, which describes the taxation under Military Occupation and
that you are under Executive control and are bound under admiralty law by the contracts we
enter, including silent contracts and by Military Occupation.
Notice the last sentence in paragraph 5, Congress may establish a temporary government, which
is not subject to all the restrictions of the Constitution. See also Harvard Law Review - the Insular
Cases. This means you do not have a Constitutional government, you have a military dictatorship,
controlled by the President as Commander-in-Chief. What is another way you can check out what
I am telling you? Read the following quotes.
"...[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it
through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the
Constitu- tion...
In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. ...And in general the guaranties of the Consti- tution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable."
[Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
"The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that 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 instru- ment, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.
I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitu- tional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.
It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution."
[Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
A Military Flag
And to further confirm and understand the significance of what I have told you, you need to
understand the fringe on the United States flag. Read the following.
First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..
"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." (my note - of course when new states are admitted, new stars are added.)
A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says: "Placing of fringe on the
national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy." 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.
The president, as military commander, can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.
"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that
it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces."
From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4: "Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides...use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power." "...The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it, there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914. Don't be thrown by the fact they are talking about the sea, and that it doesn't apply to land. Admiralty law came on land in 1845 with the Act of 1845 by Congress. Next a court case: "Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.
I have had debates with folks that take great issue with what I have said, they dogmatically say the constitution is the law and the government is outside the law. I wish they were right, but they fail to see or understand that the American people have been conquered, unknowingly, but conquered all the same. That is why a judge will tell you not to bring the Constitution into his court, or a law dictionary, because he is the law, not the Constitution. You have only to read the previous Senates report on National Emergency, to understand the Constitution and our Constitutional form of government no longer exists. Further Evidence Social Security
I fail to understand how the American people could have been so dumbed down as to not see
that the Social Security system is fraudulent and that it is based on socialism, which is the
redistribution of wealth, right out of the communist manifesto. The Social Security system first, is fraud, it is insolvent and was never intended to be. It is used for a national identification number, and a requirement to receive benefits from the conquers (king). The Social Security system is made to look and act like insurance, all insurance is governed by admiralty law, which is the kings way of binding those involved with commerce with him. "The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of Social Insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress' power to "spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'," Helvering vs. Davis [301 U.S., at 640]
"My judgment accordingly is, that policies of insurance are within... the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States." Federal Judge Story, in DELOVIO VS. BOIT, 7 Federal Cases, #3776, at page 444 (1815).
You need to know and understand what contribution means in F.I C. A., Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Read the following definition.
Contribution. Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Under principle of "contribution," a tort-feasor against whom a judgement is rendered is entitled to recover proportional shares of judgement from other joint tort- feasor whose negligence contributed to the injury and who were also liable to the plaintiff. (cite omitted) The share of a loss payable by an insure when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss. The insurer's share of a loss under a coinsurance or similar provision. The sharing of a loss or payment among several. The act of any one or several of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties, etc., in reimbursing one of their number who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.) Thereby making you obligated for the national debt. The Social Security system is one of the contractual nexus' between you and the king. Because you are involved in the kings commerce and have asked voluntarily for his protection, you have accomplished the following. You have admitted that you are equally responsible for having caused the national debt and that you are a wrong doer, as defined by the above legal definition. You have admitted to being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, who only has civil rights granted by the king. By being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, you have agreed that you do not have standing in court to question the national debt. Keep in mind this is beyond the status of our country and people, which I covered earlier in this paper. We are in this system of law because of the conquest of our country. Congress has transferred its Constitutional obligation of coining money to the federal reserve, the representatives of the king, this began after the Civil War and the overturning of the U.S. Constitution, as a result of CONGEST. You have used this fiat money without objection, which is a commercial benefit, supplied by the kings bankers. Fiat money has no real value, other than the faith in it, and you CANNOT pay a debt with fiat money, because it is a debt instrument. A federal reserve note is a promise to pay and is only evidence of debt. The benefit you have received is you are allowed to discharge your debt, which means you pass on financial servitude to someone else. The someone else is our children.
When you go to the grocery store and hand the clerk a fifty dollar federal reserve note you have stolen the groceries and passed fifty dollars of debt to the seller. Americans try to acquire as much of this fiat money as they can. If Americans were aware of this; it wouldn't matter to them, because they don't care if the merchandise is stolen as long as it is legal. But what happens if the system fails? Those with the most fiat money or real property, which was obtained with fiat money will be forfeited to the king, everything that was obtained with this fiat money reverts back to the king temporary, I will explain in the conclusion of this paper. Because use of his fiat money is a benefit, supplied by the king's bankers; it all transfers back to the king. The king's claim to the increase in this country comes from the original Charter of 1606. But, it is all hidden, black is white and white is black, wealth is actually debt and financial slavery. For those that do not have a Social Security number or think they have rescinded it, you are no better off. As far as the king is concerned you are subject to him also. Why? Well, just to list a couple of reasons other than conquest. You use his money and as I said before, this is discharging debt, without prosecution. You use the goods and services that were obtained by this fiat money, to enrich your life style and sustain yourself. You drive or travel, which ever definition you want to use, on the king's highways and roads for pleasure and to earn a living; meaning you are involved in the king's commerce. On top of these reasons which are based on received benefits, this country HAS BEEN CONQUERED! I know a lot of patriots won't like this. Your (our) argument has been that the government has and is operating outside of the law (United States Constitution). Believe me I don't like sounding like the devils advocate, but as far as international law goes; and the laws that govern War between countries, the king/queen of England rule this country, first by financial servitude and then by actual Conquest and Military Occupation. The Civil War was the beginning of the Conquest, as evidenced by the Fourteenth Amendment. This Amendment did several things, as already mentioned. It created the only citizenship available to the conquered and declared that these citizens had no standing in any court to challenge the monetary policies of the new government. Why? So the king would always receive his gain from his Commercial venture. The Amendment also eliminated your use of natural rights and gave the Conquered civil rights. The Conquered are governed by public policy, instead of Republic of self-government under God Almighty. Your argument that this can't be, is frivolous and without merit, the evidence is conclusive. Nothing has changed since before the Revolutionary War. All persons whose activities in King's Commerce are such that they fall under this marine-like environment, are into an invisible Admiralty Jurisdiction Contract. Admiralty Jurisdiction is the KING'S COMMERCE of the High Seas, and if the King is a party to the sea-based Commerce (such as by the King having financed your ship, or the ship is carrying the King's guns), then that Commerce is properly governed by the special rules applicable to Admiralty Jurisdiction. But as for that slice of Commerce going on out on the High Seas without the King as a party, that Commerce is called Maritime Jurisdiction, and so Maritime is the private Commerce that transpires in a marine environment. At least, that distinction between Admiralty and Maritime is the way things once were, but no more. George Mercier, Invisible Contracts, 1984. What Lincoln and Jefferson said about the true American danger was very prophetic. "All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. Abraham Lincoln "Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless... the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion. Thomas Jefferson Below are the political platforms of the Democrats and the Republicans, as you can see there is no difference between the two, plain socialism. They are both leading America to a World government, just as Cornwallis said, and that government will be the British empire or promoted by the British. "We have built foundations for the security of those who are faced with the hazards of unemployment and old age; for the orphaned, the crippled, and the blind. On the foundation of the Social Security Act we are determined to erect a structure of economic security for all our people, making sure that this benefit shall keep step with the ever increasing capacity of America to provide a high standard of living for all its citizens." DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM OF 1936, at page 360, infra. "Real security will be possible only when our productive capacity is sufficient to furnish a decent standard of living for all American families and to provide a surplus for future needs and contingencies. For the attainment of that ultimate objective, we look to the energy, self-reliance and character of our people, and to our system of free enterprise.
"Society has an obligation to promote the security of the people, by affording some measure of protection against involuntary unemployment and dependency in old age. The NEW DEAL policies, while purporting to provide social security, have, in fact, endangered it. "We propose a system of old age security, based upon the following principles: 1. We approve a PAY AS YOU GO policy, which requires of each generation the
support of the aged and the determination of what is just and adequate.
2. Every American citizen over 65 should receive a supplemental payment necessary to
provide a minimum income sufficient to protect him or her from want.
3. Each state and territory, upon complying with simple and general minimum standards,
should receive from the Federal Government a graduated contribution in proportion to its own,
up to a fixed maximum.
4. To make this program consistent with sound fiscal policy the Federal revenues for this
purpose must be provided from the proceeds of a direct tax widely distributed. All will be
benefitted and all should contribute.
"We propose to encourage adoption by the states and territories of honest and practical measures for meeting the problems of employment insurance. "The unemployment insurance and old age annuity of the present Social Security Act are unworkable and deny benefits to about two-thirds of our adult population, including professional men and women and all engaged in agriculture and domestic service, and the self-employed, while imposing heavy tax burdens upon all."
- REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM OF 1936, at page 366.
Both PLATFORMS appear in NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS -- 1840 TO 1972; compiled
by Ronald Miller [University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois (1973)
CONCLUSION Jesus gave us the most profound warning and advise of all time, Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed by a lack of knowledge." This being our understanding and spiritual development in His Word. When applied to the many facets of life, His Word exposes all of life's pit falls. Jesus Christ's Word covers all aspects of life. The working class during the 1700's were far more educated than now, but this was still not enough to protect them from the secret subterfuge practiced by the lawyers and bankers. Only with understanding of Jesus Christ's Word, can the evil application of man's law be exposed an understood for what it is. This is why Jesus Christ also warned of the beguilement of the lawyers and the deceit and deception they practice. Another reason, the working class have been unable to understand their enslavement, is because of the time spent working for a living. At wages supplied by the upper class, sufficient to live and even prosper, but never enough to attain upper class status. This is basic class warfare. This system is protected by the upper class controlling public education, to limit and focus the working class's knowledge, to maintain class separation. What does this have to do with this paper? Everything! This is the reason our upper class fore fathers submitted to the king in the Treaty of 1783. After this Treaty and up to the Civil War, the working class were busy making this the greatest Country in the history of the world. You see they believed they were free, a freeman will work much harder than a man that is subject or a slave. As a whole, the working class were not paying attention to what the government was doing, including its Treaties and laws. This allowed time for the banking procedures and laws to be put in place over time, while the nation slept, so the nation could be conquered during the Civil War. The only way to regain this county is with the re-education of the working class, so they can make informed decisions and vote the mis-managers of our government out of office. We could then reverse the post Civil War socialist laws and the one world government laws, that have been gradually put in place since the Civil War. Until the defeat of America is recognized, victory will never be attainable. Only through reliance by faith on Jesus Christ and the teaching of His Kingdom will we realize our freedom. As I said earlier, just as this Country has been conquered, when Jesus Christ returns he conquers all nations and takes possession of His Kingdom and rules them with a rod of iron (Rev. 11:15-18). His right of ownership is enforced by THE LAW, God Almighty.......
STUDY ALL THE INFORMATION FROM THESE SITES HERE AND HERE
Emergency Act of 1933, the "Trading with the Enemy Act" October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933.
"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the CIVIL WAR in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." Senate Report, 93rd Congress,
November 19, 1973
I'll let this soak inAugust 9, 1998
James Montgomery"
..Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee OnThe Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this so.
Folks after reading the above about our country is under a national emergency I found this about our flag. IT is currently flying with the stripes flying horizontally which means that we are at war. IF we were at peace then the strips would be vertical. YES there are two different ways our flag can be configured. Since it is apparent that our nation has been at war for most of it's existence most all of us have never seen the stripes vertical. Go here to learn something about this.
SURVEY OF THE LAW OF EXPATRIATION
Expatriating a U.S. citizen subject to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the ground that, after reaching the age of 18, the person has obtained foreign citizenship or declared allegiance to a foreign state generally will not be possible absent substantial evidence, apart from the act itself, that the individual specifically intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. An express statement of renunciation of U.S. citizenship would suffice.
An intent to renounce citizenship can be inferred from the act of serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States.
June 12, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
You have asked us for a general survey of the laws governing loss of citizenship, a process known as "expatriation" (also known within the specific context of naturalized citizens as "denaturalization"). See, e.g., Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 334 (1939) ("Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance."). Part I of this memorandum provides a general description of the expatriation process. Part II notes the relative difficulty of expatriating a person on the grounds that he has either obtained naturalization in, or declared allegiance to, a foreign state, absent evidence of a specific intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship apart from the act of naturalization or declaration itself. Part III analyzes the expatriation of a person who serves in a foreign armed force engaged in hostilities against the United States. (1)
I. Law of expatriation
It is now well settled that anyone may renounce his United States citizenship. (2) "In 1794 and 1797, many members of Congress still adhered to the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance and doubted whether a citizen could even voluntarily renounce his citizenship. By 1818, however, almost no one doubted the existence of the right of voluntary expatriation."Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 258 (1967). (3) In 1868, Congress declared that "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Act of July 27, 1868, ch. 249, 15 Stat. 223, 223 (1868); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1481 note (2000) (quoting R.S. § 1999) (same). That declaration further stated that "any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government." 15 Stat. at 224. Similarly, the Burlingame Treaty of 1868 between the United States and China recognized "the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of . . . free migration and emigration . . . for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents." United States-China, July 28, 1868, art. 5, 16 Stat. 739, 740. Congress provided specific legislative authority for nullifying citizenship when, in 1907, it enacted the predecessor of the modern federal expatriation statute. See Act of Mar. 2, 1907, ch. 2534, 34 Stat. 1228 (1907). As the Supreme Court has noted, such acts of Congress "are to be read in the light of [Congress's 1868] declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed." Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 498-99 (1950).
By virtue of its express power "[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4, Congress has an implied power to set the terms of U.S. citizenship, including the power to expatriate. (4) But that power is limited by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision states that "[a]ll 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." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.(5) As that clause has been construed by the Supreme Court at least since 1967, the United States may not deprive a person "born or naturalized in the United States" of his U.S. citizenship "'unless he voluntarily relinquishes it.'" Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 260 (1980) (quoting Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 262). (6) Forced expatriation has also been thought to violate other provisions of the Constitution. See Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 102, 103 (1958) (plurality opinion) ("[U]se of denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment. . . . The civilized nations of the world are in virtual unanimity that statelessness is not to be imposed as punishment for crime. . . . [T]he Eighth Amendment forbids Congress to punish by taking away citizenship[.]"); Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 165-66 (1963) (striking down as unconstitutional "the sanction of deprivation of nationality as a punishment . . . without affording the procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments"). Accordingly, at least since the Supreme Court's ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), it is no longer constitutionally sufficient that a person who was born or naturalized in the United States has voluntarily engaged in conduct deemed by law to be an act of expatriation. The person must also undertake such an act with the specific intention to relinquish his U.S. citizenship. See Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 263 (requiring that "the expatriating act [be] accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship"). "[B]ecause of the precious nature of citizenship, it can be relinquished only voluntarily, and not by legislative fiat." Jolley v. INS, 441 F.2d 1245, 1248 (5th Cir. 1971).
Under current federal law, any party claiming that a person has abandoned his U.S. citizenship must establish three elements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1481 (2000) (text provided in the attached appendix). First, the person must take one of the statutorily enumerated acts of expatriation, such as "obtaining naturalization in" or "taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state" after reaching the age of 18, "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state . . . engaged in hostilities against the United States," or formal renunciation before an appropriate United States official. 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a). (7) Second, he must act "voluntarily." Id. See also Nishikawa, 356 U.S. at 133 ("no conduct results in expatriation unless the conduct is engaged in voluntarily"). Third, he must act "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a). (8)Expatriation occurs "at the time the expatriating acts were committed, not at the time his alienage was judicially determined." United States ex rel. Marks v. Esperdy, 315 F.2d 673, 676 (2nd Cir. 1963), affirmed by an equally divided court, 377 U.S. 214 (1964); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1488 (2000) ("The loss of nationality under this part shall result solely from the performance by a national of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in this part.").
Formal renunciation (9) is therefore not the only way in which a U.S. citizen may express his "intention of relinquishing United States nationality." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a). An intention to abandon citizenship can also be manifested through various categories of conduct. See Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 260 ("intent to relinquish citizenship . . . [can be] expressed in words or . . . found as a fair inference from proved conduct"); Expatriation--Effect of Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 42 Op. Att'y Gen. 397, 400 (1969) ("'Voluntary relinquishment' of citizenship is not confined to a written renunciation . . . . It can also be manifested by other actions declared expatriative under the act . . . ."). Thus, although the performance of an expatriating act cannot be used as "the equivalent of or as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen," the Supreme Court has held that such conduct "may be highly persuasive evidence in the particular case of a purpose to abandon citizenship." Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 261 (quotations omitted). So long as "the trier of fact . . . conclude[s] that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship," the statutory requirements for expatriation have been met. Id. Lower courts have similarly held that "specific subjective intent to renounce United States citizenship . . . may [be] prove[d] . . . by evidence of an explicit renunciation, acts inconsistent with United States citizenship, or by affirmative voluntary act[s] clearly manifesting a decision to accept [foreign] nationality." King v. Rogers, 463 F.2d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 1972) (citations and quotations omitted). "Specific intent may . . . be proven by evidence of what steps the alleged expatriate did or did not take in connection with his expatriating acts." United States v. Schiffer, 831 F. Supp. 1166, 1194 (E.D. Pa. 1993), aff'd without opinion, 31 F.3d 1175 (3rd Cir. 1994).
The party claiming that a person has lost his U.S. citizenship has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the performance of an act of expatriation and the intention to relinquish citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b); Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 268; see also id. at 264-67 (upholding preponderance of the evidence standard of proof against constitutional attack). Although any person who performs an act of expatriation is presumed to have done so voluntarily, that presumption can be rebutted with proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the act was performed involuntarily. 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b); see also Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 267-70 (upholding voluntariness presumption against constitutional attack).
Factual doubts in expatriation cases "are to be resolved in favor of citizenship." Bruni v. Dulles, 235 F.2d 855, 856 (D.C. Cir. 1956). See also Nishikawa, 356 U.S. at 136 ("Rights of citizenship are not to be destroyed by an ambiguity.") (quoting Elg, 307 U.S. at 337); Nishikawa, 356 U.S. at 136 ("evidentiary ambiguities are not to be resolved against the citizen"). In cases of legal ambiguity, we have previously concluded that the State Department has, as the agency charged with the implementation of the expatriation statute, the discretion to select from among reasonable interpretations of the statute. Letter for Catherine W. Brown, Assistant Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs, Department of State, from Todd David Peterson, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Voluntary Expatriation of Puerto Rican Nationalists, at 3 (Oct. 31, 1997) (concluding that Chevron deference applies to State Department decisions "to apply the construction of the statute that it believes is most consistent with the policies underlying the statute"). But see Savorgnan, 338 U.S. at 498-99 (concluding that expatriation statutes "are to be read in the light of [Congress's 1868] declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed").
The issue of expatriation can arise in litigation in a number of different ways. "Since United States citizenship is considered by most to be a prized status, it is usually the government which claims that the citizen has lost it, over the vigorous opposition of the person facing the loss." United States v. Matheson, 532 F.2d 809, 811 (2nd Cir. 1976). Moreover, the Executive Branch need not seek a judicial determination that a particular individual has expatriated. It can simply treat that individual as an alien by denying him a right of U.S. citizenship and, if that action is challenged in court, defend that action on the ground that the individual is no longer a U.S. citizen. For example, any individual who is issued a certificate of loss of citizenship by the State Department pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1501 (2000), (10) or who is denied a right or privilege of a United States citizen by a government agency (such as a United States passport, see, e.g., Nishikawa, 356 U.S. at 131) on the ground that he is not a citizen of the United States, may file a declaratory judgment action in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 for a declaration that he is in fact a national of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) (2000). See, e.g., Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 256 (§ 1503 suit filed following issuance of certificate of loss of nationality). Alternatively, a person might claim U.S. citizenship through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging, for example, a deportation action. See, e.g., Marks, 315 F.2d at 675. (11)
On the other hand, a U.S. citizen who is accused of treason might claim that he had renounced his U.S. citizenship before undertaking his allegedly treasonous acts and was therefore legally incapable of committing the crime of treason against the United States. The assertion of such a defense would require a court to determine whether or not the defendant had in fact renounced his citizenship. See, e.g., Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 722 (1952) (noting defense argument that acquittal on treason charge is required "since his duty of allegiance would have ceased with the termination of his American citizenship"). Similarly, one might claim loss of citizenship to avoid liability under U.S. tax laws. See, e.g., Matheson, 532 F.2d at 811 ("Here the estate of a wealthy deceased United States citizen seeks to establish over the government's opposition that she expatriated herself. As might be suspected, the reason is several million dollars in tax liability, which the estate might escape if it could sustain the burden of showing that the deceased lost her United States citizenship.").
II. Foreign naturalization or declaration of foreign allegiance
Under federal law, a U.S. citizen can lose his nationality if he voluntarily "obtain[s] naturalization in a foreign state . . . after having attained the age of eighteen years." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(1). Likewise, a citizen of the United States could be expatriated if he voluntarily "tak[es] an oath or mak[es] an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(2). In either case, however, no loss of citizenship may result unless the citizen acts "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a).
The most common obstacle to expatriation in cases involving foreign naturalization or declaration of foreign allegiance is sufficient proof of a specific intention to renounce U.S. citizenship. Intent need not be proved with direct evidence, to be sure. It can be demonstrated circumstantially through conduct. Thus, in some cases, such as service in a hostile foreign military at war with the United States, the act of expatriation itself may even constitute "highly persuasive evidence . . . of a purpose to abandon citizenship." Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 261 (quotations omitted). See generally Section III. Because, however, both foreign naturalization and declaration of foreign allegiance are, with respect to U.S. citizenship, more ambiguous acts, they constitute weaker evidence of "a purpose to abandon citizenship." Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 261 (quotations omitted).
Dual nationality, the Supreme Court has explained, is "a status long recognized in the law." Kawakita, 343 U.S. at 723. See also id. at 734 ("Dual nationality . . . is the unavoidable consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries. One who becomes a citizen of this country by reason of birth retains it, even though by the law of another country he is also a citizen of it.") (citation omitted); Savorgnan, 338 U.S. at 500 (although "[t]he United States has long recognized the general undesirability of dual allegiances[,] . . . [t]emporary or limited duality of citizenship has arisen inevitably from differences in the laws of the respective nations as to when naturalization and expatriation shall become effective"); Elg, 307 U.S. at 329 ("As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality."). The mere assertion by an individual of citizenship in one country thus need not manifest an intention to relinquish citizenship in another country, for "[t]he concept of dual citizenship recognizes that a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact that he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other." Kawakita, 343 U.S. at 723-24.
Current federal regulations thus establish an administrative presumption under which "U.S. citizens who naturalize in" or "take a routine oath of allegiance" to a foreign country "need not submit evidence of intent to retain U.S. nationality." 22 C.F.R. § 50.40(a). In such cases, "intent to retain U.S. citizenship will be presumed." Id. "In other loss of nationality cases," by contrast, such as those involving service in a hostile foreign military, federal regulations erect no such presumption; instead, "the consular officer will ascertain whether or not there is evidence of intent to relinquish U.S. nationality." Id.
Relevant case law reflects a similarly cautious attitude towards expatriation based on foreign naturalization or declaration of foreign allegiance. In a number of cases, courts have held that a declaration of foreign allegiance was alone insufficient to manifest an intention to renounce U.S. citizenship, because such assertions are frequently consistent with the maintenance of dual U.S.-foreign citizenship. In Kawakita, for example, the Supreme Court held that the defendant, a dual Japanese-U.S. national, had failed even to commit an act of expatriation, let alone manifest the requisite intention to renounce, even though he had expressed his allegiance to Japan. The Court noted that, because "all Japanese nationals, whether or not born abroad, are duty bound [under then-Japanese law] to Japanese allegiance," the mere act of "registering in the Koseki [an official Japanese census register] is 'not necessarily a formal declaration of allegiance but merely a reaffirmation of an allegiance to Japan which already exists.'" Id. at 724 (quoting expert deposition). (12)
Likewise, in United States v. Matheson, 532 F.2d 809 (2nd Cir. 1976), the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. citizenship of the decedent, Dorothy Gould Burns, a U.S. natural born citizen who later became a Mexican citizen by virtue of her marriage to a Mexican national, even though she had sworn an oath stating that "I expressly renounce all protection foreign to said laws and authorities (of Mexico) and any right which treaties or international law grant to foreigners, expressly furthermore agreeing not to invoke with respect to the Government of the Republic (of Mexico) any right inherent in my nationality of origin." Id. at 816. The court first noted that "there must be proof of a specific intent to relinquish United States citizenship before an act of foreign naturalization or oath of loyalty to another sovereign can result in the expatriation of an American citizen." Id. at 814. Applying that rule, the court concluded that Burns's oath expressed "merely a subscription to a basic principle of international law governing dual nationality: that a national of one country (e. g., United States) may not look to it for protection while she is in another country (e. g., Mexico), of which she is also a national," a principle that "has repeatedly been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States." Id. at 816. The court further noted that
[h]ad Mrs. Burns wished to expatriate herself she could simply have unequivocally stated that she renounced her American citizenship. Instead, she used language to the effect that as a Mexican national she could not claim her rights as a United States citizen 'with respect to the Government of the Republic (of Mexico). . . .' This limited surrender did not preclude her from claiming rights as a United States citizen outside of Mexico. Indeed, once outside of Mexico she did not hesitate, consistent with this interpretation of her 1944 declaration, to invoke important rights and privileges inherent in her United States birthright. Thus we must conclude that the 1944 declaration amounted to nothing more than a statement of dual nationality.
Id. (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit concluded in King v. Rogers, 463 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1972), that Elihu King was no longer a U.S. citizen. The court noted that, "to obtain British naturalization, King took an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II." Id. at 1189. That act "alone," however, was "insufficient to prove renunciation," although it did "provide[] substantial evidence of intent." Id. To reach its ultimate conclusion that Mr. King had renounced his U.S. citizenship, the court relied on other statements in which he demonstrated that he considered himself no longer to be a U.S. citizen as the result of his British naturalization. See id. at 1190 ("These statements indicate that while King never formally renounced his United States citizenship, he intended to do so when he became a naturalized British subject, and that he would do so at any time to 'simplify' matters."). See also In re Balsamo, 306 F. Supp. 1028, 1033 (N.D. Ill. 1969) (although "[n]early all sovereignties recognize that acquisition of foreign nationality ordinarily shows a renunciation of citizenship," the Constitution requires that one "voluntarily abandon or relinquish his United States citizenship"); cf. Baker v. Rusk, 296 F. Supp. 1244, 1246 (C.D. Cal. 1969) ("It would seem evident that any time a person takes an oath of allegiance to the sovereign of the country in which he is then residing, he gives substantial indication that he considers himself to be a national of that country and that he has relinquished any prior citizenship. However, this is not inevitably so . . . .").
An oath of allegiance to a foreign country that includes an express statement of intention to renounce United States citizenship is likely to result in expatriation. For example, in Terrazas v. Haig, 653 F.2d 285 (7th Cir. 1981), the Seventh Circuit concluded that Laurence Terrazas, a U.S. natural born citizen who had also acquired Mexican citizenship at birth by virtue of his father's Mexican citizenship, had adequately manifested an intention to renounce when, at age 22, he executed an application for a certificate of Mexican nationality. Id. at 286. That application, the court concluded, contained a statement not only asserting foreign nationality, but also expressly renouncing United States citizenship:
I therefore hereby expressly renounce ____ citizenship, as well as any submission, obedience, and loyalty to any foreign government, especially to that of ____, of which I might have been subject, all protection foreign to the laws and authorities of Mexico, all rights which treaties or international law grant to foreigners; and furthermore I swear adherence, obedience, and submission to the laws and authorities of the Mexican Republic.
Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 255 n.2. "The blank spaces in the statement were filled in with the words 'Estados Unidos' (United States) and 'Norteamerica' (North America), respectively." Id.The court thus concluded that "there is abundant evidence that plaintiff intended to renounce his United States citizenship when he acquired the Certificate of Mexican Nationality willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily." Terrazas, 653 F.2d at 288. In addition to the statement itself, the court noted, inter alia, the timing of Terrazas's actions, which suggested that he was attempting to avoid U.S. military service. Id. at 288-89. Terrazas also never took steps to reverse his application, even after he had received his certificate of Mexican nationality, id. at 288, which also expressly recited his renunciation of any other citizenship, id. at 286.
In sum, expatriating an individual on the ground that, after reaching the age of 18, a person has obtained foreign citizenship or declared allegiance to a foreign state generally will not be possible absent substantial evidence, apart from the act itself, that the individual specifically intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. An express statement of renunciation of U.S. citizenship would suffice.
III. Service in a hostile foreign armed force
An individual who voluntarily "enter[s], or serv[es] in, the armed forces of a foreign state" (13) may be expatriated, "if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(3). Nonetheless, no person may be expatriated unless he acts "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a). That said, although the performance of an expatriating act cannot be used as "the equivalent of or as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen," such conduct "may be highly persuasive evidence in the particular case of a purpose to abandon citizenship." Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 261 (quotations omitted).
Voluntary service in a foreign armed force that is engaged in hostilities against the United States has frequently been viewed as a particularly strong manifestation of an intention to abandon citizenship. As Attorney General Clark once opined, "it is highly persuasive evidence, to say the least, of an intent to abandon United States citizenship if one enlists voluntarily in the armed forces of a foreign government engaged in hostilities against the United States." 42 Op. Att'y Gen. at 401. See also 22 C.F.R. § 50.40(a) (although "intent to retain U.S. citizenship will be presumed" when an individual "naturalize[s] in a foreign country" or "take[s] a routine oath of allegiance," no such presumption is provided "[i]n other loss of nationality cases").
Lower federal courts have expressed a similar view. It bears noting that most of the cases involving expatriation on the ground of service in a foreign armed force were decided prior to 1967, (14) when the Supreme Court announced in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects all individuals "born or naturalized in the United States" against expatriation absent a demonstration of specific intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. In at least two relatively recent decisions, however, courts have concluded that the requisite intention to renounce U.S. citizenship can be inferred from the act of serving in an armed force engaged in hostilities against the United States.
In United States v. Schiffer, 831 F. Supp. 1166 (E.D. Pa. 1993), aff'd without opinion, 31 F.3d 1175 (3rd Cir. 1994), the government brought a denaturalization action against Nikolaus Schiffer, a U.S.-born citizen who had previously been expatriated for his service as a member of the Romanian army and a guard at concentration camps during World War II, but who subsequently and successfully sought naturalization. Schiffer was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to non-citizen parents in 1919, but in 1920 he moved with his parents to Moravitz, Romania, where he maintained dual U.S. and Romanian citizenship as a minor. In 1940, he voluntarily presented himself for registration for the Romanian Army, even though Romania did not permit United States citizens bearing dual Romanian citizenship to serve in the Romanian Army. In 1941, he reported for basic training for Romanian Army service and, like his fellow soldiers, swore an oath of allegiance to the Romanian monarch, King Carol II. That December, Romania declared war on the United States. The defendant served in the Romanian Army until 1943. See generally 831 F. Supp. at 1169-71. In 1943, he volunteered to serve in the Waffen-SS Totenkopfsturmbann (Death's Head Battalion), an elite Nazi force, and like his fellow SS members, swore an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler. In that capacity, the defendant served as a concentration camp guard until 1945. As a concentration camp guard, he never requested a transfer or refused any assignment. Id. at 1175-76. In 1945, he was captured and held by U.S. Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. The next year, he was discharged as a prisoner of war and arrested by U.S. authorities as a suspected war criminal. He was released in 1947. Id. at 1180-81. In 1952, the State Department executed a certificate of loss of citizenship to the defendant. The next year, he obtained an immigrant visa and was admitted to the United States accordingly. Id. at 1183-84. In 1958, he applied for naturalization. His application failed to disclose fully, however, his prior service and detention as a suspected war criminal. His naturalization application was approved on the basis of his misrepresentations, and a federal district court issued the defendant a certificate of naturalization. Id. at 1184-85.
In 1993, the same district court granted the government's request for an order canceling Schiffer's 1958 naturalization certificate. Id. at 1206. The court reasoned that the defendant, a natural born U.S. citizen, had relinquished his citizenship and then procured his naturalization through misrepresentation. Notably, the court justified its expatriation determination by noting that an intention to renounce U.S. citizenship could easily be inferred from the defendant's service in a hostile foreign army at war with the United States:
We find Schiffer's intent to renounce his United States citizenship was manifested by his conduct prior to and upon entering and serving in the Romanian army and swearing allegiance to King Carol II, his conduct upon voluntarily entering and serving in the Waffen-SS and swearing allegiance to Adolf Hitler, and his conduct immediately following the war.At least from his teenage years, Schiffer knew that he was an American citizen and, as such, was exempt from military service. . . . Schiffer failed to take any action whatsoever despite knowing that Romania was at war with the United States. We can think of no conduct more repugnant to an intent to retain American citizenship or more demonstrative of an intent to relinquish American citizenship than voluntary service in the armed forces of a country at war with the United States. . . . Schiffer's conduct in voluntarily joining the Romanian army is so obnoxious to an intent to retain United States citizenship that, in the absence of credible proof to the contrary, we can infer his intent to relinquish his United States citizenship.
Id. at 1194-95 (emphasis added, citations omitted). The court's decision was affirmed on appeal without opinion. 31 F.3d 1175.
The Third Circuit took a similar view of service in a hostile foreign army in Breyer v. Meissner, 214 F.3d 416 (3rd Cir. 2000). Like Schiffer, Johann Breyer later joined the Death's Head Battalion during World War II. Id. at 418-19. The court first determined that Johann Breyer was entitled to citizenship at birth. Although he was born in Czechoslovakia in 1925, his mother was an American citizen. At the time, federal law granted citizenship at birth to children born abroad to fathers who are American citizens, but not to children born abroad to foreign fathers and mothers who are citizens of the United States. The court held the law unconstitutional and concluded that Breyer was entitled to citizenship at birth. Id. at 429. The court then remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether Breyer remained a U.S. citizen, in light of his activities during World War II. In doing so, the court expressly pointed out that Breyer's decision to join the Death's Head Battalion could constitute a renunciation of American citizenship, regardless of whether he was even aware of his entitlement to U.S. citizenship at the time:
[T]he knowing commitment made by a member of the Death's Head Battalion, during a period when Germany was at war with the United States, demonstrates a loyalty to the policies of Nazi Germany that is wholly inconsistent with American citizenship. Although when he took his oath of allegiance first to the Waffen SS and then to the Death's Head Battalion, Johann Breyer was not aware of his right to American citizenship, one could conclude that he voluntarily made a commitment that, had he known of this right, clearly would have repudiated it. . . . Johann Breyer may have made such a disclaimer of allegiance to the United States by a voluntary enlistment in the Waffen SS and then again in the Death's Head Battalion.. . . If these acts were voluntary, . . . the court must determine whether they were performed with an intent to relinquish citizenship. We conclude that a voluntary oath of allegiance to a nation at war with the United States and to an organization of that warring nation that is committed to policies incompatible with the principles of American democracy and the rights of citizens protected by the American constitution--an organization such as the Death's Head Battalion--is an unequivocal renunciation of American citizenship whether or not the putative citizen is then aware that he has a right to American citizenship.
Id. at 431 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the court remanded the case
to determine if [Breyer's] actions constitute a voluntary and unequivocal renunciation of any possible allegiance to the United States of America, a renunciation made in a time of war against the United States that demonstrated an allegiance to Nazi Germany and a repudiation of any loyalty--citizen or not--to the United States. Cf. Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 68, 78 S.Ct. 568, 2 L.Ed.2d 603 (1958) (Warren, C.J., dissenting and stating that some actions "may be so inconsistent with the retention of citizenship as to result in loss of that status."). On remand, the District Court must determine whether Breyer's acts constitute such a renunciation.
Id. at 431 (emphasis added). On remand, the district court denied Breyer's motion for summary judgment on the issue of voluntariness. See Breyer v. Meissner, No. CIV. A. 97-6515, 2001 WL 1450625 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2001). According to the last published court order in the case, trial was set for mid-May, 2002. See Breyer v. Meissner, No. CIV. A. 97-6515, 2002 WL 922160, at *1 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2002) ("a trial currently is scheduled in this matter for mid-May of this year so that the question of whether Breyer voluntarily relinquished his United States citizenship may be resolved").
In summary, both the Third Circuit and the district court in Schiffer (which the Third Circuit affirmed without opinion) have determined that the act of serving in a foreign armed force engaged in hostilities against the United States may itself manifest a specific intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.
Finally, we must point out that involuntary service in a hostile armed force does not constitute grounds for expatriation, because no person can lose his U.S. citizenship "unless he voluntarily relinquishes it." Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 260 (quoting Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 262). As our Office has noted, "conscription into military service, particularly in a totalitarian country, may make such service and any attendant oath of allegiance involuntary, if the individual would otherwise face physical punishment, imprisonment, or economic deprivation." Voluntariness of Renunciations of Citizenship Under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6), 8 Op. O.L.C. 220, 229 (1984) (collecting cases). Courts have thus found that certain individuals could not be expatriated on the basis of their conscripted service in a hostile armed force, on the grounds that such service was truly involuntary under the circumstances. See, e.g., Nishikawa, 356 U.S. at 136 ("petitioner showed that he was conscripted in a totalitarian country [Japan] to whose conscription law, with its penal sanctions, he was subject"); Augello v. Dulles, 220 F.2d 344, 346-47 (2nd Cir. 1955) ("fact of the plaintiff's conscription into the Italian army was sufficient proof of duress to preclude a finding that his consequent taking of the oath was voluntary"). See also Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133, 135 (1952) (noting Attorney General's conclusion that "[t]he choice of taking the oath or violating the law was for a soldier in the army of Fascist Italy no choice at all") (quotations omitted).
The mere fact of conscription, alone, is not sufficient to defeat the statutory presumption of voluntariness, however. After all,
military service is frequently performed willingly, freely, even voluntarily, although technically there is no enlistment but conscription under a 'compulsory' service law. We are not ready to believe that everyone inducted into an army, a navy, or an air force, performs his service solely because of the proximity of the court martial or the police station. Duress cannot be inferred from the mere fact of conscription.
Acheson v. Maenza, 202 F.2d 453, 458 (D.C. Cir. 1953) (footnote omitted). See also United States v. Ciurinskas, 148 F.3d 729, 734 (7th Cir. 1998) (holding that an individual who had served in the German Order Police during World War II had done so voluntarily, where there was no evidence that he had been conscripted, and where members of his battalion were permanently released from service upon a written request); United States v. Stelmokas, 100 F.3d 302, 313 (3rd Cir. 1996) (same). As noted in Section I, the presumption of voluntariness must be rebutted with proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the act of expatriation was in fact performed involuntarily. See 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b); see also Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 267-70 (upholding voluntariness presumption against constitutional attack).
JOHN C. YOO
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
1. Editor's Note: Footnote 1 has been removed in order to preserve the confidentiality of internal government deliberations.
2. Hundreds of American citizens renounce their citizenship every year. See Richard A. Westin, Expatriation and Return: An Examination of Tax-Driven Expatriation by United States Citizens, and Reform Proposals, 20 Va. Tax Rev. 75, 98 (2000) (listing annual renunciation rates for 1980-1994).
3. See also Right of Expatriation, 9 Op. Att'y Gen. 356, 358 (1859) ("the general right, in one word, of expatriation, is incontestible"); Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 497 (1950) ("Traditionally the United States has supported the right of expatriation as a natural and inherent right of all people."); Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 139 (1958) (Black, J., concurring) ("Of course a citizen has the right to abandon or renounce his citizenship"); Lozada Colon v. United States Dep't of State, 2 F. Supp. 2d 43, 45 (D.D.C. 1998) (assuming that "an individual has a fundamental right to expatriate").4. It was once thought that, because the Naturalization Clause contained no express provision for Congressional power to expatriate a U.S. citizen against his will, no such authority existed. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), "[a] naturalized citizen . . . becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is, to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual." Id. at 827. In Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), the Court found an inherent federal power, beyond the express terms of the Constitution, to forcibly expatriate U.S. citizens, as a necessary attribute of sovereignty. See id. at 57 (concluding that power to expatriate necessarily arose out of federal power to conduct foreign relations (citing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936))). That view was abrogated, however, in Afroyim. See Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 257 ("This power cannot, as Perez indicated, be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty possessed by all nations. . . . Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones.").
Under the Court's current jurisprudence, the Naturalization Clause empowers Congress to expatriate U.S. citizens without obtaining their consent, but only with respect to naturalized citizens who fall outside the protection of the Citizenship Clause. Individuals not protected by the Citizenship Clause acquire U.S. citizenship, if at all, solely by an act of Congress enacted pursuant to the Naturalization Clause, and not pursuant to the Constitution itself. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971) (Citizenship Clause does "'not touch[] the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization'") (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898)); see also note 6. With respect to such individuals, Congress's power under the Naturalization Clause includes the power to set conditions subsequent to naturalization, failure of which may result in expatriation without consent. See Bellei, 401 U.S. at 834 ("it does not make good constitutional sense, or comport with logic, to say, on the one hand, that Congress [in exercising its authority under the Naturalization Clause] may impose a condition precedent, with no constitutional complication, and yet be powerless to impose precisely the same condition subsequent").
5. By its express terms, the Citizenship Clause does not protect persons who acquire U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born abroad to parents, at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen, because such persons are not "born or naturalized in the United States." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 827 (1971).
6. Afroyim, the Court had held precisely the opposite view - namely, that nothing in the Constitution prevents U.S. citizens from forfeiting their citizenship, against their will, for voluntarily engaging in certain kinds of conduct, such as voting in a foreign election. That view was restated most recently in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958). See, e.g., id. at 58 n.3; id. at 61; see also Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 312 (1915);Savorgnan, 338 U.S. at 499-500. Three justices who dissented in Perez, however, concluded that the Citizenship Clause prohibits expatriation absent the citizen's assent. See Perez, 356 U.S. at 66 (Warren, C.J., dissenting). In 1967, the Court expressly overruled Perez by a 5-4 vote in Afroyim. See Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 257 ("we reject the idea expressed in Perez that . . . Congress has any general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent"); id. at 262-63 (noting that primary purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to prevent Congress from stripping blacks of U.S. citizenship). Not a single justice suggested a return to Perez when the Court revisited the issue of expatriation in 1980. See Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980).
7. The statute's list of acts of expatriation appears to be exhaustive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1488 (2000) ("The loss of nationality under this part shall result solely from the performance by a national of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in this part."). But see Kawakita, 343 U.S. at 731-32 (declining to resolve whether other acts of expatriation may be available).
8. Additional restrictions on expatriation, not apparently relevant here, are enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1483 (2000). First, "[e]xcept as provided in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 1481(a) of this title, no national of the United States can lose United States nationality under this chapter while within the United States or any of its outlying possessions, but loss of nationality shall result from the performance within the United States or any of its outlying possessions of any of the acts or the fulfillment of any of the conditions specified in this Part if and when the national thereafter takes up a residence outside the United States and its outlying possessions." 8 U.S.C. § 1483(a). Second, "[a] national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to United States nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have lost United States nationality by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of section 1481(a) of this title." 8 U.S.C. § 1483(b).
9. Federal law establishes two separate mechanisms through which an individual may formally renounce U.S. citizenship. First, a citizen may make a formal renunciation of U.S. nationality "before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(5) (emphasis added). See also 22 C.F.R. § 50.50(a) (2001) ("A person desiring to renounce U.S. nationality under section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(5)] shall appear before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in the manner and form prescribed by the Department."). By its terms, renunciation under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(5) can only occur outside the United States. For purposes of this provision,
[t]he State Department has issued a form, "Oath of Renunciation of the Nationality of the United States" (the "oath") for the purpose of enabling formal renunciation to occur. The renunciant must sign the oath and swear to its contents. The renunciant must swear that "I desire to make a formal renunciation of my American nationality, as provided by section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(5)] and pursuant thereto I hereby absolutely and entirely renounce my United States nationality together with all rights and privileges and all duties of allegiance and fidelity thereunto pertaining." The oath is accompanied by a "Statement of Understanding" (the "statement"), which the renunciant must also sign. The statement declares, in part, that "Upon renouncing my citizenship I will become an alien with respect to the United States, subject to all the laws and procedures of the United States regarding entry and control of aliens," that "If I do not possess the nationality of any country other than the United States, upon my renunciation I will become a stateless person and may face extreme difficulties in traveling internationally and entering most countries." The statement also permits or invites the renunciant to "make a separate written explanation of my reasons for renouncing my United States citizenship." The executed papers are then forwarded to the State Department together with a diplomatic or consular report.
Letter for Catherine W. Brown, Assistant Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs, Department of State, from Todd David Peterson, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Voluntary Expatriation of Puerto Rican Nationalists, at 1-2 (Oct. 31, 1997).
Alternatively, a citizen may formally renounce "in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6). This provision appears to permit formal renunciation within the United States. Although there is currently no regulation for accepting a formal renunciation within the United States pursuant to this provision, we believe that no such regulation is necessary. The statute only states that the Attorney General shall prescribe a "form" for renunciation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6). We see no reason why such a form could not be produced at the time a U.S. citizen seeks renunciation pursuant to that provision.
10. Under federal law, "[w]henever a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States has reason to believe that a person while in a foreign state has lost his United States nationality under [8 U.S.C. §§ 1481-1489], he shall certify the facts upon which such belief is based to the Department of State, in writing, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State [currently codified at 22 C.F.R. §§ 50.40(b)-(e), 50.50(b), 50.51 (2001)]." 8 U.S.C. § 1501 (2000). See also 22 C.F.R. §§ 50.40(c) (2001) (same).
For purposes of these provisions, a "consular officer" is "any consular, diplomatic, or other officer or employee of the United States designated under regulations prescribed under authority contained in this chapter, for the purpose of issuing immigrant or nonimmigrant visas or, when used in subchapter III of this chapter [8 U.S.C. § 1401-1504] for the purpose of adjudicating nationality." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(9) (2000). The regulations governing the adjudication of nationality, 22 C.F.R. §§ 50.1 to 50.51, do not appear to define "consular officer." According to the regulations governing the issuance of immigrant or nonimmigrant visas (which do not apply to the regulations governing the adjudication of nationality), the term "[c]onsular officer . . . includes commissioned consular officers and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, and such other officers as the Deputy Assistant Secretary may designate for the purpose of issuing nonimmigrant and immigrant visas, but does not include a consular agent, an attache or an assistant attache. . . . [T]he term 'other officers' includes civil service visa examiners employed by the Department of State for duty at visa-issuing offices abroad, upon certification by the chief of the consular section under whose direction such examiners are employed that the examiners are qualified by knowledge and experience to perform the functions of a consular officer in the issuance or refusal of visas. . . . The assignment by the Department of any foreign service officer to a diplomatic or consular office abroad in a position administratively designated as requiring, solely, partially, or principally, the performance of consular functions, and the initiation of a request for a consular commission, constitutes designation of the officer as a 'consular officer' within the meaning of [8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(9)]." 22 C.F.R. § 40.1(d) (2001).
11. In addition, any United States Attorney can file an action in federal court "for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting [a] person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization" previously granted to a person seeking U.S. citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) (2000). Such denaturalization actions are appropriate where "such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation," and thus are not directly related to expatriation. Id. Nevertheless, expatriation issues have been squarely raised during the course of denaturalization proceedings, for example, to explain the circumstances causing a natural born citizen to seek naturalization in the first place. See, e.g., Schiffer, 831 F. Supp. at 1169.
12. Mr. Kawakita had been tried and convicted of treason for beating and inflicting other acts of cruelty upon American prisoners of war held in Japan. See id. at 737-40. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction after rejecting Kawakita's contention that he was no longer a U.S. citizen and therefore did not owe allegiance to the United States, one of the elements of a treason offense. See id. at 722. As noted above, Kawakita failed to persuade the Court that his expression of allegiance to Japan constituted grounds for expatriation. In addition, the Court rejected Kawakita's argument that he had effectively "serv[ed] in the Japanese armed services," another statutorily enumerated act of expatriation. Id. at 727 (quotations omitted). The Court instead found that Kawakita was merely an interpreter employed by a private Japanese company, and not a soldier in the Japanese army, for purposes of the expatriation statute. See id. ("Though petitioner took orders from the military, he was not a soldier in the armed services . . . . His employment was as an interpreter for . . . a private company.").
13. Assuming that the Taliban represents the "armed forces" of Afghanistan for purposes of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, the President has concluded that the Taliban does not satisfy at least three of the four requirements of lawful combat, and therefore that Taliban fighters are ineligible for treatment as prisoners of war under the Convention. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Status of Taliban Forces Under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, at 4-7 (Feb. 7, 2002).
14. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Marks v. Esperdy, 315 F.2d 673 (2nd Cir. 1963), affirmed by an equally divided court, 377 U.S. 214 (1964) (expatriation due to service in Fidel Castro's Rebel Army).
AGAIN, I AM THE MESSENGER, NOT THE AUTHOR OF ANY OF THIS MATERIAL. I AM NOT THAT SMART, SO IF YOU HAVE AN GRIPS WITH IT ALL PLEASE POINT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE' "INFORMER" AND JAMES MONTGOMERY. I DO NOT GET ANY BENEFIT PAYMENT OR COMMISSION FROM THEM FOR THIS, ONLY THE PLEASURE OF TELLING FOLKS ABOUT THE ABOUT BS AND CORRUPTION OF WHAT IS GOING ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS OF OUR "GOVERNMENTS" THAT WE HAVE LOST CONTROL OVER AND THAT WE NEED TO GET CONTROL OF IT SOMEHOW AND WE NEED TO RALLY SOME SMART PEOPLE ACROSS THIS NATION AND WAKE THE SLEEPING SHEEPLE SOON SO THAT WE MAY STOP THE MADNESS FOR OUR CHILDREN'S, GRANDCHILDREN'S AND THEIR FUTURE GENERATIONS SAKE! IF WE DON'T, THEY ARE DOOMED TO A WORLD OF HELL, AND DAMNATION!! I'M NOT BLOWING SMOKE!! WHEN YOU LEARN WHAT I KNOW YOU WILL HAVE MORE URGENCY ABOUT THIS!! SEE THIS BLOG!!
No comments:
Post a Comment