Since my postings on this and other boards have been so popular and started so many interesting and sometimes heated debated I’d thought I’d step it up a notch and throw something out here that should most definitely get some people thinking.It is a piece I aqiered from another, but interesting non the less as we have found it to be true. Just a few notes. One it is 13 pages long in my word format so there is a bit of reading and my be too long for those with short attention spans. Two, we have found this to be true as we have had no problems with the FBI in approving Sovereign CITEZENS who buy weapons with no restrictions. It is nice to pick up and pay for a pistol in 15 minutes. If you have the right standing you have rights not the privileges most of you are used to having. A privilege can be encroached and revoked. A right can not. Once you understand some basic definitions you can begin to read and understand what the courts are really saying. With that you can begin to regain your freedom as a few thousand in the said united States already have. Enjoy the information.
"The Gun Control Act of 1968"
Public Law 90-618
United States of America vs. United States
Does this Act pertain to Citizens of the several States?
As a Life member of the NRA for the past twenty-two years, naturally, I became interested in the history of guns and the laws which govern them. This report then is the culmination of my years of study and research, with which, I intend to show how, particularly over the past 60 years, we have collectively lost sight of what our actual status as Citizens truly is.
To that end, my argument addresses our misunderstanding of The Gun Control Act of 1968, as well as our individual Constitutional Rights and even the Internal Revenue Service as they relate to our Constitutional guarantees as well as to our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms as sovereign Citizens of the several States. This report will demonstrate, using case law and the government's own set of codes, that the rules and regulations of the United States Federal Government do not apply to our sovereign Right to own, use, make, carry, transfer, buy or sell guns. The evidence presented here will clearly show the manipulation, coercion and fraud the United States of America Government has systematically perpetrated on "We the People...", the true and rightful sovereigns, as defined in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.
Many of us have heard the phrase, "It’s the letter of the law that counts". In general, we are not to draw inferences from the law’s text regarding the meaning of the law. The courts instruct us that the law is what it states, verbatim, nothing more and nothing less. Although, as a matter of practice, it is natural to draw meaning from the law and at times, we even refer to the spirit of the law, referring to the founders intent at the time of its writing. However, should questions or conflicts arise with respect to what the law actually says, the final authority in making that determination and defining the meaning of any law, is that of the supreme Court. This then is how precedents in law are established and case law comes to govern us in the courtroom. Meaning, the ultimate law is the definition of a particular legislative law as defined by the supreme Court. Thus, the only recourse left is that of the Legislature to re-write the law.
One day, while searching for further insight into these laws, which we have come to accept as governing our access and use of arms (and our lives), I made a startling discovery, while rereading portions of the United States Code (USC) pertaining to The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), I noticed for the first time a table of definitions. The table included a definition for the term "interstate or foreign commerce," which in turn describes the geographic boundaries for which the GCA has jurisdiction. The following is the pertinent text: (If you have a FFL, see your Federal Firearms Guidebook)
US Code: Title 18, Section 921(a)(2) - Definitions:
The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States of America (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State.
The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States of America (not including the Canal Zone).
The geographic boundaries of the United States are clearly described in the Constitution as the District of Columbia, its possessions and territories:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States of America, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Note: the term, United States, is a noun, a proper name and title, describing the Federal (Central) Government, a separate corporate entity, housed in the District of Columbia and is the offspring of the "We the People...".
However, in the above 921(a)(2) definition, the USC, in effect, has redefined the United States to only include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States of America. What happened to the "Territories" (Guam, Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, the American Samoa, etc.)? By this self-proclaimed-redefinition, the "Territories" have, in effect, become the "any place outside that state" and as such satisfies the term "foreign commerce".
Leaving the term "interstate commerce" to mean the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the possessions.
As we then substitute the definition for the term "State" from the second sentence and the term "Territories", into the first sentence, the passage then reads:
The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce between any place in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States of America (not including the Canal Zone) and the Territories of that District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States of America (not including the Canal Zone), or within any possession of the United States of America (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States of America (not including the Canal Zone) but through the Territories of that District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States of America (not including the Canal Zone). [emphasis added to illustrate substitution]
At first, this seems nonsensical. Nevertheless, note that nowhere is Iowa, Illinois, Indiana or any one of the other several States mentioned (the reason for this overt omission I leave to the reader). However, at this point, it is safe to assume that you are as surprised as I to discover that the Gun Control Act of 1968 applies only to the District of Columbia, the possessions and territories of the United States, and not to any one of the several States.
Now, let us take a moment to examine the term INCLUDE, since it is often used in USC and CFR code definitions and how it is being used to confuse our understanding of the meaning of a definition.
Includes and Including: Title 26. Subtitle F, Chapter 79, Sec. (7701) (c) - Definitions (IRS)
The term "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
The words "includes" and "including" when used in the Tax Code DO NOT mean that other things can be included, but rather the definition is limited to the items specifically listed in the law.
Using Black's Law Dictionary for the legal interpretation:
"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To confine within, hold as an inclosure. take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrase, involve. Term may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation. [Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or. 123, 400 P.2d 227, 228]."
In other words, according to Black, when INCLUDE is used, it expands to take in all of the items stipulated or listed, but is then limited to them! Otherwise, the definition would be ambiguous and in legal terms, that would be devastating. Leaving one to wonder what else might be included and therefore, the law as written, would not be definable or definitive.
What I came to realize, during my studies and research, is that the Federal Government, in all of its USC and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), has used this method of redefining common, everyday terms to mean something else entirely and that includes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
For example: Since the BATF gets its taxing authority from the IRS (both are under the Treasury Dept.) and therefore refer to each others respective sections of the CFR's and also share in common definitions as well, let us examine how the IRS defines the term United States. In the IRS 1040 kit, it asks "who is required to file a 1040 form." The IRS's answer states, "all citizens of the United States no matter where they are located." Here then is how the IRS defines the term United States:
TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 79, Sec. 7701 (a)(9)
United States: The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 79, Sec. 7701 (a)(10)
State: The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
Again, substituting the definition for State into the definition for United States we arrive at what can only be described as a totally different meaning than what you and I have thought all along.
The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia. [emphasis added to illustrate substitution]
Further research revealed that The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 54 (c) shows us that Congress indeed knows and understands that these Acts of Congress do not apply within any one of the several states of the Union, but do apply in the Federal States (areas/enclaves) created by The Buck Act.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 54 (c)
(c) Application of Terms. As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings.
"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession. [underlines added]
"State" includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular possession.
Again, it appears that these "acts" of Congress don't apply to the several States.
In reviewing The Buck Act of 1940, which creates these Federal States (areas) within the geographic boundaries of the several States, we find:
Title 4 USC Section. 110 (d) and (e)
(d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
(e) The term ''Federal area'' means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.
Again, let us do the substitutions:
(e) The term ''Federal area'' means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any Territory or possession of the United States of America, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such Territory or possession of the United States of America. [emphasis added to illustrate substitution]
To further demonstrate that the Federal Government, purposely and knowingly redefines ordinary words, consider another definition found in CFR 27. This is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) section on the IMPORTATION OF ARMS, AMMUNITION AND IMPLEMENTS OF WAR:
Title 27, Chapter I, Part 47, Section 47.11, Subpart B - Meaning of terms -
United States. When used in the geographical sense, includes the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the insular possessions of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any territory over which the United States exercises any powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction. [underline added]
Clearly, the Federal Government recognizes the several States as a separate entity, as it should and as is enumerate within the Constitution. However, in this instance the term United States a is being used in a collective sense, because this section of the CFR is talking about the importation of arms from foreign countries, not the use or sale of firearms within the several States.
Notice the use of the term "Arms" in the title of this Chapter of the BATF Code. In other definitions and codes they use the term "Firearm". There is a legal distinction between the term "Arms" as used in the Second Amendment and the term "Firearms" which infers a Federal privilege.
If Congress wanted to apply these various Codes and Acts to all the several States and the People, they need only include the statement "several States and the People." But, this they did not do, because to do so would be in clear violation of the intended restrictions of the Constitution of the United States, not to mention the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Sovereign Citizenship is the status fought for and won by our forefathers from the British Empire and has since become the birthright of all Natural Born Americans, and via our Constitution, we extend this status to foreign-born persons as well through our naturalization laws.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition defines "sovereign" as:
"A person, body, or state in which independent authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy."
At the time of the Revolution, the King of England was the sovereign and the people within the Colonies were his subjects. After the colonies won the war with Britain, the people wanted a different status which did not call for them to serve any man, King or body government.:
The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State." [State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838)]
At this point, you might ask, how is it that the Federal Government can claim jurisdiction over me? With respect to firearms, the process was as simple as writing "Yes" when answering the question "are you a citizen of the United States?" when completing form 4473 (9)(L) (the "yellow sheet") when purchasing a firearm from a Federally licensed dealer. Note however, that it is not required to answer "yes" on the 4473 form. You can answer "no" and still purchase the gun. Read the box at the bottom of the front page, it DOES NOT mention item (9)(L) as having to be answered "yes or no" to purchase a firearm.
Citizen v. citizen: Refer to Black's Law Dictionary for a legally acceptable copy of the Constitution.
Note; the capitalization of the term Citizen all the way through the Constitution and the first thirteen Amendments. Thereafter (from the 14th Amendment on), it is shown in lower case only. Why? Because, one is a sovereign Citizen of the several States with Unalienable Rights granted by the Creator and protected by the Constitution, while the other is a Federal citizen of the United States with legislative Immunities and Privileges only.
The Federal Government knows and understands this difference and so should we.
Surely, this is no secret to the legal community.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition also defines the "Fourteenth Amendment":
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states; forbids the making or enforcement by any state of any law abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; and secures all "persons" against any state action which results in either deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,…." [emphasis and underlines added]
It appears then that the 14th Amendment has not only created a new status of citizen, that of the United States, it has also retained exclusive legislative authority over such persons by forbidding any one of the several States from enacting any law over such "citizens" that would deprive them of life, liberty or property.
Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights, which relate to state citizenship. [Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)]
If you are like me, you probably are thinking that this all sounds redundant, because, I thought we already had these Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and if that were true then the 14th Amendment would not have been necessary. Except that, it is not about sovereign Citizens of the several States, it is about a new class of citizen of the United States (the District of Columbia, its possessions and territories). Simply, it is an effort to appear equivalent to the Constitution, for citizens of the United States have no Constitutional guarantees, merely legislative immunities and privileges. This then answers how the Government has been able to pass what appears to be unconstitutional laws, at least to sovereign Citizens, but not to citizens of the United States, which have no Rights or guarantees under the Constitution.
While the United States has no direct authority over a sovereign Citizen neither does a State have authority over a Federal citizen. This in part explains the difference in the term "STATE OF ILLINOIS" with respect to the term Illinois Republic. The former is also a corporate entity created under the Buck Act and is a possession of the United States. While the Illinois Republic is the sovereign State, one amongst the several States.
Recall the definition for the United States as examined earlier. Were you born in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any of the Possessions or Territories of the United States? If not, you have just asserted your own United States citizenship by answering "Yes" to the question on form 4473. Now that you have legally declared yourself a citizen of the United States, and have signed the document, you have accepted its "terms and conditions", which includes the entire USC and the CFR and are now subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
Were you ever curious about why, as individuals, we can buy and sell firearms between each other without completing a form 4473? Well, the answer is that the 4473 form is a requirement only of the dealer who holds a Federal Firearms License, not the People. The Federal Government has no authority over a sovereign Citizen and must rely on our ignorance and complicity to persuade and trick us to complete the form. Ironically, the dealer is not required to do so either, nor is he required to have a FFL, but has also been misled and influenced by the practice of redefining commonly used words. Once again, the Federal Codes only applies to the United States (the District of Columbia, the possessions and territories) and to the federal citizens thereof (no matter where they are located), not the several States or the People.
While the Constitution does enumerate congressional power and authority to the United States to govern itself [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17], it has no exclusive legislative authority over the several States or the People thereof.
However, the Constitution also states that, "No State shall enter into any…law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…". By asserting United States citizenship on form 4473 and signing it, we enter into a private contract with the Federal Government and agree to the terms and conditions of that contract. A contract being an agreement between two or more people and their signatures, serve both to affirm the contract and to obligate them to the terms, conditions and performances therein.
Article 1, Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and 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 Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. [underlines added]
Most of us grew up thinking we were born citizens of the United States. In reality, we are sovereign Citizens of the State in which we were born, such as the Illinois Republic. The Congress of the United States refers to any one of the several States as one of the freely associated compact States.
So, assuming you were born in one of the 50 freely associated compact States, you are a Citizen of that State and therefore a Citizen of the union of States known as the United States of America. However, you are not now nor have you ever been a "citizen of the United States." If you have an American Passport, please look at it. Notice that it is from the "United States of America" (NOT the "United States"), and that it does not contain a Social Security Number! The following is yet another example that demonstrates the difference:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People." [underlines added]
Obviously, the United States and the States, CANNOT be the same thing, or the sentence is redundant. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights knew exactly what they were writing -- that the powers not designated to the federal government were reserved to the several freely associated compact States and the People!
Hear the words of John Jay as he spoke at the Inauguration of the New York Constitution in 1777:
"… Every member of the state ought diligently to read and study the constitution of his country, and each the rising generation to be free. By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend and assert them." - John Jay (1777) [underlines added]
Again it is apparent, that the founders knew and understood that each State, within the several States is a separate entity in its own right and is as sovereign as any other country (nation) upon the Earth. That is why each State has its own militia, its own Governor, Legislature, Secretary of State and most of all, a Constitution. Not to mention the need for extradition proceedings and reciprocal agreements with other States. Do these things not describe and define an independent sovereign Nation?
Remember that the British surrendered to each of the thirteen Colonies (Nation-States) separately and individually. Those States then formed a union of States, committing themselves to each other for the common good. Subsequently, "We the people…" created a Constitution, which in turn created the entity known as the United States. However, never at any time did any of the States surrender their individual sovereignty. When we refer to ourselves in the vernacular as citizens of the United States, we actually think we are saying Citizens of the United States of America.
Is it not true, that, in the course of natural events, that the created can never be greater than its creator? By this same logic, the United States and the Federal Government can
never be greater than the Constitution, the union of the several freely associated compact States or the People.
Therefore, one must surely and reasonably conclude that, the answer is "NO", The Gun Control Act of 1968 DOES NOT pertain to sovereign Citizens within the union of the several freely associated compact States. Nor for that matter, does any other Federal Regulation or United States Code, unless or until we sign up for them.
The mistake proponents of the Constitution and we gun enthusiasts (activists) have been making is that we have been fighting the battle against the wrong adversary: the Federal Law (codes, rules and regulations). That particular battle is lost from the outset, because to recognize the law, is to accept the law and its authority and we lose by default. Our efforts should therefore focus exclusively on the JURISDICTION of the law, by re-claiming our sovereignty as Citizens of the several States.
No law holds power over those who do not fall under its finite jurisdiction.
The United States was created to serve the several States, not to be its master.
Lastly, one must understand that this is all a matter of perspective. Meaning that since the Federal Government has no direct authority over the several States or the People, we then, must be the ones to initiate these contracts. They then, assume we are truly "citizens of the United States," because we answered, "YES" on the 4473 form and also because we DID NOT reserve any of our Rights to the contrary under our Constitutional Rights to Common Law.
According to the Ashwander v. T.V.A. case, here is what the court has stated happens to us when we sign-up for any Federal Program (benefit or privilege).
"anyone who partakes of the benefits or privileges of a given statute, or anyone who even places himself into a position where he may avail himself of those benefits at will, cannot reach constitutional grounds to redress grievances in the courts against the given statute." [Ashwander v. T.V.A., 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S. Ct. 466, 482, 80 L.Ed. 688, (1938)][underlines added]
Since the 4473 is a contract, it is governed, in part, under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC is statute law regulating contracts dealing in commerce (remember, the Federal Government gets what little authority it does have over the several States from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3]). Now that all the courts are Admiralty Courts and under Federal Jurisdiction, Common Law has been placed "in harmony with" the UCC.
In the ANDERSON version of the Uniform Commercial Code (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co.), it states the following:
"The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, WHICH REMAINS IN FORCE, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." [UCC 1-103.6]
Here then is what one should do in order to reserve their Rights under the Constitution and the 7th Amendment.
Uniform Commercial Code, Section 1-207:
Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights
"A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice,' 'under protest' or the like are sufficient." [underlines added]
The "without prejudice" clause is the means which enables one to assert his 7th Amendment guarantee of access to the Common Law and the Constitution.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Further, the UCC states:
"When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." [UCC 1-207.9] [underlines added]
What this all means is this, whenever you sign any legal document, whether it is dealing with the Federal Government, State Government, BATF, IRS, Social Security, Drivers License Bureau, Voter Registration or anything to do with Federal Reserve Notes, etc. ( in any way, shape or manner), over your signature you must write: "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" and never again answer "YES" to, "are you a citizen of the United States".
By the way, a true sovereign Citizen of any one of the several States is actually a non-resident alien to the United States. So, guess who isn't required to file an IRS 1040 Income Tax Return? You, guessed it, a non-resident alien. Why? Because, we are foreign
to the United States. We were not born in the District of Columbia and we are not residents of the District of Columbia.
Volume 20 of "Corpus Juris Secundum" at 1758 states:
"The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state." [N.Y. v. re Merriam 36 N.E. 505; 141 N.Y. 479; affirmed 16 S. Ct. 1073; 41 L. Ed. 287] [underlines added]
However, there are certain conditions and circumstances where upon a non-resident alien might be required to file a 1040-NR tax return. Generally, compensation for one's labor, which is not INCOME, is simply a fair trade for his Life. It is unconstitutional to tax a man's Life but, it is not unconstitutional to tax a Federal citizen's life, for such a person has no Constitutional Protection. Rather, income is profit or gain of principle, as in an investment were one would be required to pay capital gains taxes.
For those who have already come to decide, through their own research and understanding of the limits the Constitution imposes of the Federal Government, it is at this point we hear about them getting into trouble with the Federal Government, particularly the IRS. Of course this then leads to the fear we all have and our reluctance to pursue the matter ourselves.
It is absolutely crucial, to know and understand that one must rescind and revoke ALL signatures and powers of attorney that one might have EVER committed to with the Federal Government in their LIFE TIME. For example, if the first IRS 1040 tax return you ever filed was in 1960, then you must notify the IRS that you are revoking your signature on ALL 1040 tax returns starting in 1960 to the present. The same then would be true in regards to the BATF and all of those 4473 forms you've signed since 1968.
In this way ONLY, can one deal with any level of Government and still retain access to the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and to Common Law as sovereign Citizens of the United States of America.
It is my hope and my wish, that everyone who reads this report, will take the time to verify the information presented in it, as I have, and will then use it to untangle themselves from the greed and corruption of our Federal Government who has chosen to usurp our Constitution for their notions of a NEW WORLD ORDER and then use it to help inform others.
This report is not copyrighted, so please, feel free to pass it along to fellow gun enthusiast and FREEDOM lovers everywhere . I only ask that it not be altered in any way and if an error is found or you wish to make a comment, please contact me via e-mail: email@example.com.
Additional copies and/or updates (as this is a work in progress - based on your feedback) may be downloaded from my web-site at: http://www.amguard.net/
Make no mistake about it, if the truth of the matter is not sufficient, then all we have left is the battle cry...
"Truth is incontrovertible, ignorance can deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is." Winston Churchill
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the issue!”
Benjamin Franklin 1759
you have a cliff's notes version?
Your book will have to wait until I'm done with "Unintended Consequences."
Nope. But it is a good read.
If your like I ws you can't put it down right? Took me 19 hours strait to finish it. Most excellent read.
Tagged for reading in depth at a later time.
Here's a list of reasons why the court system cares:
Very Nicely done.
lots of info I never really thought about, I will research it more.
who infact would you send your letter to at the federal level stating that you are recinding your signatures? That is puzzling me.
again GOOD JOB. Pilk
Geesh, I need a computer in the john to read this much stuff.
The whole argument is based on a semantic analysis of the usage and applied meaning of the words INCLUDE and INCLUDING.
Though the author is technically correct in that the definition of the word "including", as applied to the GCA, would in fact limit the GCA's authority to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the possessions, his conclusion, while technically interesting, is hardly on solid ground.
All that would be necessary to clear up the misunderstanding (and that is all it is) would be for Congress to pass a simple one line change to the text of 18 U.S.C. 922 and/or 921, changing the text to use the definition that includes all fifty states, the territories and possesions, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia as the United States.
This article is based on a technical error in the way the law is written...a technical error that can be easily corrected.
Just being realistic about it.
Qwik summery for those who don't like reading that much.
Ok simple summery. The laws most of you are used to, in this case the GCA of 68 do not apply to everyone. Only to U.S. (IE federal) citizens. If you are a Sovereign (IE State) CITEZEN they do not apply. I can attest to that fact as we have many things federal citizens can not own. Or in something you are more familiar with, when we buy a handgun, we pick it out, fill out the same paperwork you do (but in a different way) pay for it, and leave with it. Takes around 15 minutes. Should see the look on the clerks face when the FBI tells them to give it to us right away. Priceless. Is that a bit easier to understand? (And shorter?)
As to who we go through for our Soverinity the list is as follows;
DOUGLAS LA FOLLETTE, and/or you, your Part Two
predecessor(s), successor(s), agents, heirs and assigns
jointly and/or severally, in person and/or in office
heretofore known as and incorporated by:
Secretary of State
for the STATE OF WISCONSIN(sic)
COLIN POWEL, and/or you
your successor(s), predecessor(s), agents, heirs and assigns
jointly and/or severally, in person and/or in office
heretofore known as and incorporated by:
Secretary of State of the UNITED STATES (sic)
Main State Building
2201C St. N.W.
Washington (D.C.) 20520
JOHN SNOW, and/or you,
your predecessor(s), successor(s), agents, heirs and assigns
jointly and/or severally, in person and/or in office
Heretofore known as and incorporated by:
Secretary of the Treasury of the UNITED STATES (sic)
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, North West,
Washington (D.C.) 20220
Hope you have something to back up your opinion. We act within the written law. You are only familiar with the failings of a few who didn’t do it right. Don't confuse the little you hear in the news with the many of use who live it without problem every day. Like I said, everything we do is in law and follows SC decisions. Most of those who failed, failed for the reason you said. They were tiring to be free, but still collect benefits from the corporation. That can't be done, it is fraud. I don't know there cases in persona, but would bet they weren’t really Sovereign, they only claimed to be. You just don't become Sovereign by wakening up one day and deciding you are. You must go though particular lawful procedures. If you think it is a farce I will provide particulars. We haven't had any problems with our automobiles for instance and have used them with our ID tags for 2 years. We have had @13 stops. Every time officer says have a nice day. Care to guess why?
Like it or not, the ultimate interpreters of the laws are the courts.
Otherwise, I assure you that I’d decide that income tax laws don’t apply to me!!
Can you cite any court decisions where this interpretation is accepted?
Now that's funny!
Yes. [intense, focused look] TELL ME MORE. BE SPECIFIC. [/intense, focused look]
please explain how you fill out a 4473 and what's the deal with automobile registration and plates? Thanks.
We have cases for just about everything. What aria do you want to go over?
I will edit this to add that we even have a US SC case where a LEO may be killed for merely brandishing his weapon. Only applies to Sovereign CITEZENS though.
Bladerunner2347, you made this statement earlier in the thread...
Can you please explain in detail exactly how you fill out the relevant paperwork, what the usual reaction is from the gun dealer, and what the FBI says to them/you concerning the sale???
You’re still talking legal, not lawful. Dose your definition of person include a living breathing being? I would bet not. That is what we are certified from the secretary of state as being. Laws still apply to us, just not the private laws applied to subject citizens like yourself. I was a LEO once also. What is done here is iron clad in law. You are right when you say most all the standard law enforcement officers don't know what it is. But the Judges and attorneys do. We can not be brought into a statutory/Admiralty court without a valid contract. If you yourself decided that because I was traveling in an automobile not owned by the STATE I could be arrested what contract would you claim I broke. And do you have any idea what the penalties from USC place on officers who proceed under "color of law". Not to mention the personal liability you incur within a few hours. You must learn the difference between legal and lawful. They are 2 different things that can not be used interchangeably. Attempting to do so, even in good faith is a federal felony. Dig into your DA for some clarification; you may be surprised at what he says.
We are classified as non resident aliens. We have no SSN. We fill out the paperwork appropriately. In place of the SSN we use our Apostil #. That number identifies to the FBI that we are not under there legal system. The dealers are then told that we are approved for an immediate sale and transfer of the weapon. This works on class 3 also without restrictions, so we avoid the 3 tier pricing caused by corporate interference with the subject citizens. It is something that should be seen to understand and believe. A lot of this is over simplified for public consumption. There is a lot of stuff that must be done before you can do something as simple as travel unrestricted in an automobile.
If someone can post some pix for me I will give you a few examples to think about. Any takers?
Yeah, I'll host. Up to 150K per pic.
PM me and I'll give you my email to send them to and I'll take it from there. I'll put them on my host and give you the URL's for them so you can post them as YOU wish.
Your on. Mail sent.
I would (genuinely and truly) like to see a federal court decision that clearly and specifically holds that:
It would have to a federal court since state and local courts cannot regulate the federal government.
It also really needs to be a single ruling since intellectual constructs based on bits and pieces of disparate rulings can easily mean different things to different people.
Here are the links to a few pix. You will see this is not just talk, it is action. Feel free to copy the signs for your personal use. They work great for Sovereigns and slaves alike.
Instead of attacking the entire law, chisel away at the parts of it that you and your lawyer find the most unconstitutional, then go after the smaller ones till there is no law left.
(tagged for later)
No, The police will be the loosers.
Here is a mix of quotes and court cases the run a large gamut. (Hope not too many) Pay particular attention to the last quote.
"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."
16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose."
Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."
Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
"Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution. ... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."
16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, Pg. 987
AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."
American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:
"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'"
City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:
"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as:
"The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense ... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure."
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717
"Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health."
Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45;
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309
"Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey."
Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034
Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.
Notice that in all these definitions, the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.
Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.
The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler," is defined as:
"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..."
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case.
"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both `operator' and `driver.'"
Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658
It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
"The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort."
People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4
"Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent."
Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118
In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.
This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.)
In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is:
"a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power."
Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203
"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority."
Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540;
Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848;
O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887
"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution."
Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60;
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613
"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions."
Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60
"As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language."
Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882
"Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxation.
The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied."
McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316
"... It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax ... a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars."
Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46
"If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation."
Ibid., Pg. 47
"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people."
Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
"Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public."
Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660
"Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526
"Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee."
Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018;
16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 81
"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution."
16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70
“The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” id.
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law for it is the author and source of law;" Yick Wo vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopkins 118 U.S. 356.
"Here [in America] sovereignty rests with the People." Chisholm. v. Georgia, (2 Dall) 415, 472.
"To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States. But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration." Chisholm v. Georgia, (2 Dall) 440, 455.
"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states." Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997.
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY).
“The United States are not one of the class of corporations intended by law to be exempt…” United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625, 631 (1896).
“The United States is to be regarded as a body politic and corporate.” In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505 (1894).
Why are Soverigns not bound by the corporate entities like a US citizen, unless they agree to it?
United States (Federal Corporation)
“citizen” of the United States (subject to the jurisdiction thereof)
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke, (1784)
So would we. Unfortunately what we have to work with is general statements from the courts that rights can not be infringed upon. Remember you only have rights as a Sovereign. If you are a US citizen you only have privileges. It is easiest to under stand if you keep a blacks law handy, (3rd Ed or earlier) and read a case from back to front. What you will see is the courts say the same thing I am; they just don't say it in plain language. It's all in the definitions.
I would be interested in the specifics of that case. The reason being we have found the only ones that loose are those who cut corners and don't do it right. Probably the reason we haven't lost yet. And it's not just here. We have a few hundred around the said united States. No problems with a single one in 2 years. We have plenty of stops, with subsequent releases (no citations). I would bet you were either dealing with someone who was not sovereign, but wished he was; or a Sovereign who did not remove his vehicle from STATE ownership. Both must be done to turn it into an automobile.
As for the signs you will note they use USC title 18 and 42. That covers both federal citizens and Sovereign CITEZENS. Federal citizens may not claim title 18; likewise we may not claim title 42.
But as for practice like I said, we haven't lost a round yet anywhere in the country. The difference is whether you are dealing with knowledgeable Sovereigns or not. Just as most LEO's don't really know the law and how to properly work in a court, most Sovereigns don't either. Don't believe that your one encounter with someone who didn’t know enough to stay on the lawful side of things extends to those of us that do. We have had a few public officials try us. Including our STATE attorney General. She lost to the tune of 600,000. Do yourself a favor and study real well before you make any assumptions that could cost you your job and everything you worked for. If anything if you stop one of ours with these plates, call your supervisor and let him assume the liability. LEO's working for the corporation can live and work peacefully side by side with true Sovereigns. But you have to know where the line is and where your jurisdiction ends. But that is another thing we are tiring to get brought into the academies up here. Right now they are kicking out new LEO's with no idea that there are different kinds of citizens. When I went through many years ago I raised the question and was told "some people think they are different, but they are not". Now I know that is not a true statement. And not knowing that can cost a new LEO there career and life’s work really quick. Unfortunately some had to find out the hard way before they figured the law out. But who ever said tyrants ever gave up power without a fight?
D00d! What are you smoking, and where can I get some??
The 'State as a soveriegn nation' stuff died with the Army of Northern Virginia...
The the commerce clause, the power to tax, right to trave, and full faith & credit clause, combined with the 14th & 16th ammendments, have eliminated 'state soveriegnty' in the modern USA... That things were interpreted differently pre-Civil War is beside the point...
We are all citizens of the USA, not of the individual states... And even if you were just a 'citizen' of your state, you would be subject to STATE laws, including vehicle registration...
Interstate Commerce, as defined in the courts, is any commercial transaction between parties who are not legal residents of the same state. End of story...
It is an interesting opinion. Any cases to go with it?
Stop up at our Republic and get all you want.
Bladerunner2347, while I can't say that I buy what you are selling, I do find your POV & course of action VERY interesting.
You keep referring to "us" & "we"... what organization do you belong to, & can you refer us to some web sites that might provide further insight into your claims of "sovereignty"?
Good for you Bladerunner, I like to read about people who are still free (or think they are).
I hope it keeps working for you.
Was that Fedex pilot who got away with the Tax evasion a Sovereign also?
Post some links where we can find out more info!
Check the 922(o) thread...
The 9th Circuit (Yes, I know, often overturned... But this time they got one right) just finished a case (Bob Stewart's appeal challenging the 86 MG ban) where they found the 86 MG ban unconstitutional in situations relating to home-made MGs, because Congress did not have power under the commerce clause to regulate such activity.
In the process, they touch on multiple precedents as to what IS within the commerce clause (including the 68 GCA, by nature of it's specific exclusion of in-state person-to-person transactions), and find that 922(o) is unconstitutional as applied in the Stewart case...
Apart from striking down the 86 MG ban for home made designs, it's also a good run through on commerce clause application...
Since the Commerce Clause is the basis of the VAST majority of modern federal criminal law, there's ALOT of case background on it...
Historically, the power to tax was the justification for most federal law, with the reason for this being that historically there was alot less interstate commerce and it was easier to tax something off the market than to ban it by virtue of the commerce clause.
Now, with the nature of our economy, almost all goods (legal and illegal) are obtained through interstate or international commerce, so the tax-it-to-hell approach is less common, and outright bans & direct regulation have come into favor...
The 14th ammendment specifically extends federal control over state actions by applying federal constitutional rights to state legal matters (Prior to this, your federal constitutional rights only applied to federal matters). The 16th Ammendment (income tax) allows the Federal government to tax based on income, the full faith and credit clause requires states to recognize legal transactions committed in other states, and the right to travel clause prohibits states from restricting travel by 'the people' (US Citizens). Those, combined with commerce, give the Feds all the power they need to regulate any issue of significance...
As for the whole citizen of (wherever) issue, the last time we had widespread belief that one's citizenship & loyalty was to a state, we had a civil war. The rebels lost as you know, and (fortunately) the question of where one's citizenship lies was settled. States have residency, nothing more. They do not issue passports, have embassies, or any of the other organs of a sovreign nation (ex military forces. But the Feds fund (and can take control of) those too). Check your state constitution and laws - WI, at least, makes no provision for granting 'citizenship' anywhere in it's constitution or statutes.
Even if this whole 'state sovereignty' thing WERE solidly grounded in legal precedent, I'm a citizen of the USA, not the state of Wisconsin. One Nation, Indivisible.
State government is useful in making sure that each region of the country is governed by the laws of those who live there - without it we'd live in liberal tyranny, fueled by the votes of NY, Chicago, LA, and similar... However, that 'local, touchable govt' is only fit to handle local issues... A strong central govt is still in the interests of the nation as a whole, to balance out regionalisim and handle international affairs to big for the individual states, and the commerce clause - appropriately limited, gives them control over everything they need to touch, while keeping them out of explicitly local issues (like what the penalty for a crime should be, weapons carry laws, local taxation, etc... ).
It's not so much a formal orgainisation. To be formal you get recegnition from the state. We can't do that without giveing them at least some authority over us. But a good place to start some research would br here. It will give you the basics.
No I don't believe she was. If she was she would not have argued the way she did, and you would have seen the IRS personnel running away from her for fear of there personnel liability. Something they do with us after losing 1.8 mil to one of our local members. An Amish one at that.
Woo hooo!!! Someone pass the bong!