March 30, 1998

FRANK A. TAUCHER

Suite 190 8210 East 71st Street

Tulsa, Oklahoma state NonDomestic, 74133

918-493-1132 (fax)

To : Ms. Sunny Harris

ON CITIZENSHIP

Letter to Ms. Sunny Harris;

Dear Ms. Harris;

You have requested that I explain "citizenship" for your magazine.

Please keep in mind that I am not an attorney, but a concerned Citizen who has been oppressed by government for publishing a book without first having registered my opinions with government. All which follows is thus presented in the context of my own personal First Amendment experience.

To thoroughly review the question of citizenship, we must first return to the founding of our country and explore the concepts of unalienable rights and sovereignty.

Long before the adoption of The Declaration of Independence, We The People were granted sovereign rights by our Creator which we asserted when we declared our independence. You may recall that we also claimed certain of our rights to be unalienable and that among our unalienable rights was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These sovereign rights could not be taken away by another man or by any of man's creations, such as government, but could be forfeited by voluntarily granting or giving them away.

We declared these rights both for the People and for our Posterity.

The next step of We the People was to form a government which would respect our sovereignty, preserve our unalienable rights, protect our property, and so on. Each of the individual 13 colonies had already been granted limited authority by We the People in their capacity as 13 individual nations, but additional functions were required which could best be solved by a union of the States, such as a national military to protect the borders against foreign invasion. It was thus that We the People delegated certain powers to a national government, first in the Articles of Confederation and then in the Constitution for the United States of America in 1789.

At first, Congress had no authority to legislatively lien any of We The People's unalienable rights which makes sense since, had such authority been delegated to Congress, We The People would no longer be sovereign - Congress would be sovereign.

Such legislative powers not granted by the Constitution to Congress were further expressly retained by the States by the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Americans thus celebrated their freedom as sovereign State Citizens.

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.

- Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370

Outside the United States, a collective United States Citizenship was also required as Americans travelled abroad. An example of this need might be seen when a Citizen in a foreign nation required U.S. embassy assistance, for example. When used in such manner, the United States is thus thought of as a sovereign nation among the world family of nations. Congress has sovereign legislative authority over and legislates such affairs from the District of Columbia which is the 100 square mile capitol of the United States.

Hence, until the Civil War, although the term "citizen of the United States" was used, it primarily specified the Citizen's sovereign State Citizenship which was the Citizen's primary citizenship within the borders of the United States of America.

Such citizenship, of course, was not granted to all inhabitants of the several States.

After the war, although the slaves were freed in the South, individual states, which retained their legislative sovereignty, refused to pass laws granting voting rights to blacks, refused to allow blacks to own property, and refused to allow blacks to enjoy other unalienable rights. As a consequence, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed which conferred on blacks certain rights the Legislatures of the individual Southern States refused to otherwise grant.

Note the difference between the rights granted in these amendments by legislators and the rights inherent in sovereign State Citizens which were granted by the Creator. The first set of rights were granted by man and were thus not rights at all, but privileges which may be withdrawn at the whim of the grantor. In this instance, repeal of the 14th Amendment would serve to withdraw the privileges. Contrast such servitude with unalienable rights granted by the Creator which may not be affected by legislative decree.

The 14th Amendment thus created a new group of people termed "persons" and another class of citizenship, the "citizen of the United States". This citizenship is not for use outside the borders of the United States of America, but is the federal plantation into which the blacks were ushered. Federal citizens, U.S. citizens and citizens of the United States are thus synonymous terms and are those persons who receive benefits or privileges from or are aliens that have been admitted as citizens to the United States.

26 CFR 1.1-1(c) (the Internal Revenue Code) defines this citizenship as follows;

"Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen."

One should examine very closely what at first appears to be plain and simple language in this regulation. Note, for example, that the word "person", also used in the 14th Amendment, is again specified. A "person" in law is a legal entity which has rights and duties and includes corporations, trusts, estates, and other fictions of law. Note also that the singular "its" is substituted for "their" (as in the jurisdiction of the "United States" and not the sovereign 50 states in union), that the citizen defined is the uncapitalized 14th Amendment or federal plantation citizen and not the sovereign Citizen, and that the key term, "United States", is undefined.

"United States" as used in this definition and in the federal plantation appears to mean ONLY the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the federal "enclaves" which have been ceded to the United States (such as forts, docks, buildings, and so on) by acts of the 50 State Legislatures. Prior to Statehood, such "Territories" as Oregon, Louisiana, Utah, the Northwest Territories, and so on were also part of this definition.

The 50 sovereign States are not included in the District of Columbia federal plantation.

The key jurisdictional question thus implies that there are others who are born or naturalized in the United States but are not "subject to its jurisdiction".

3A Am Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens, explains;

A Person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if this birth occurs in territory over which the United States is sovereign . . .

"Territory" is specified because the United States cannot be sovereign over the States since the States already claim such sovereignty.

Congress has exclusive legislative authority and jurisdiction over this federal "United States" which it derives from from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America.

And what about Constitutional rights on the federal plantation?

. . . [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 Constitution . . .

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 (sic) of the Constitution, 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. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

Constitutional protections are nonexistent.

If you're still with me, your jaw should be bouncing off the floor.

Multiple definitions of the "United States"?

Multiple citizenships?

A federal plantation for blacks?

Surely, you must be thinking, if this were true, it would be the biggest story of the century and the press would have long ago done their job and exposed the fraud . . .

Well, it is, and they haven't, so here's the factual evidence from no less an authority than the Supreme Court itself;

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

- Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)

We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the other, and each has citizens of its own . . .

- United States v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person.

- Gardina v Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909)

The issue as to whether there are different meanings to the term "United States," and whether there are three different "United States" operating within the same geographical area, and one "United States" operating outside the Constitution over its own territory, in which it has citizens belonging to said "United States," was settled in 1900 by the Supreme Court in De Lima v Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, and in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244. In Downs, Justice Harlan dissenting stated as follows;

The idea prevails with some -- indeed it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially and practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.

He went on to say on page 823;

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 constitutional 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 v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244

An unpublished brief entitled "Memorandum in Support of Request for the District Court to Consider the T.R.O. and Injunction by the Magistrate" by John Knox, Knox v U.S., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Texas, Case No. SA-89-CA-1308 stated (paraphrased);

This theory of a government operating outside the Constitution over its own territory with citizens of the United States belonging thereto was further confirmed in 1922 by the Supreme Court in Balzac v Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 300 where that Court affirmed that the Constitution does not apply outside the limits of the 50 States of the Union . . . the "United States" was given exclusive power over the territories and their citizens of the "United States" residing therein.

Finally, in 1945, the Supreme Court agreed to settle, once and for all, this question of multiplicity;

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

- Hooven & Allison & Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

To summarize, when travelling abroad, you come under the jurisdiction of the President through his agents in the U.S. State Department, where "U.S." refers to the sovereign nation. You are a "Citizen of the United States".

It is the second citation that defines the federal plantation. Here Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. In this sense, the term "United States" is a singular noun. You are a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves or you are living abroad. Living abroad might mean that you are physically living in a foreign country but might also mean that you are living in one of the States of the Union. Hence, even a person living in the one of the sovereign States could still be a member of the federal plantation and a "citizen of the United States".

Finally, the term "United States" can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united under the Constitution for the United States of America. The federal plantation is not included in this definition because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. Rights are retained by the States in the 9th and 10th Amendments and you are a "Citizen of these United States" or of "The States United".

Note that these three citizenships are in addition to that of the sovereign State Citizen.

Even the United States Code, Title 28, Section 1746, has two oaths that may be executed, one within the United States and one without the United States. This latter oath is subject to the laws not of the United States, but of the United States of America.

So if this second "United States" exists, what is seated on the federal plantation?

How about government agencies, for starters, such as the ones (the CFTC / NFA) that attempted to confiscate my free press, First Amendment protections?

Federal Reserve Bank.

Internal Revenue Service.

Social Security.

What is not included?

2nd Amendment gun rights, as an example.

You might be able to recall other infringements which govern your daily life and which would not exist were your unalienable rights and the protections secured by the Constitution upheld.

Can you now understand how the CFTC / NFA were able to claim that I had to register my book when such infringements are seemingly so clearly prohibited by the First Amendment?

The only logical explanation I have been able to conclude is the CFTC / NFA claimed jurisdiction over me through the District of Columbia federal plantation where Constitutional protections do not exist.

The alternative explanation suggests that CFTC / NFA officials disregarded their Oath of Office.

I have difficulty believing that government officials could be so callous and negligent!

Because it appears that CFTC / NFA officials consider me to be a citizen of the federal plantation, they have been able to claim all these years that I must first license my sacred and unalienable right to create and dispose of property through the fruits of my labors prior to managing funds for other Citizens who might wish to avail themselves of my abilities.

That the rights to lease land and to accept employment as a laborer for hire are fundamental rights, inherent in every free citizen, is indisputable.

- United States v Morris, 125 F.Rept. 322, 331 (1903)

Rule on the federal plantation is not by law, but by cronyism, lobbyist, money, and power. Merit and achievement are irrelevant.

Such conclusion also explains how the tobacco companies are being forced into settlement in spite of juries across the land being unwilling to hold them liable for the bad choices made by consenting adults.

Such is a game that most American Citizens do not want or know how to play, preferring instead to be left alone to enjoy their serenity and only asking of government that the potholes be fixed and the kids educated.

But if the federal plantation exists in the District of Columbia and does not include the 50 sovereign States in its jurisdiction, how does a sovereign State Citizen become a 14th Amendment person and gain citizenship on this plantation?

The only way a sovereign can become a subject is for the sovereign to voluntarily submit to the King's rule.

And how is this done?

My understanding is that social security and the federal income tax are the two major schemes through which sovereign Citizens voluntarily surrender, through acquiescence and compliance, their sovereignty to the federal system.

Once in, government simply proceeds on the presumption that the sovereign State Citizen would rather be a 14th Amendment plantation slave than to walk the land as a Free Man.

The Citizen/citizen reader who learns of this multiplicity of citizenship is thus confronted with several VERY disturbing questions given such knowledge;

First, who do you think you are?

Second, who does the federal government think you are?

Third, who are you?

Fourth, if you are on the federal plantation, and if the Constitution affords you no protections, what laws govern?

Fifth, can you reclaim your sovereign rights?

Sixth, where's the lap-dog press been on this and similar issues (as in, why didn't we learn of this fraud decades ago instead of having such boneheaded stuff as Monica and O.J. endlessly drummed into our consciousness)?

Seventh, how many young men and women have died in such federal plantation excursions as the Viet Nam War believing they were fighting for their country, the United States of America?

Eighth, if my analysis is correct, and I have no reason to believe that it is not, then the fraud that has been perpetrated on you and your children is immense, calculated, and deliberate. Who will be held responsible for the fraud perpetrated upon We The People and our Posterity? Is such fraud treason?

Ninth, do you see how so many activities are now being federalized and classified as felony offenses?

Tenth, have you now gained greater understanding of federal "crimes against the state" as opposed to common law crimes that involve actual damages?

Eleventh, do you now understand how "property" can be defined as a participant in a federal crime and, without Constitutional due process, be immediately forfeited and seized with the proceeds from the sale of the property going to the agency that confiscated the asset?

The question thus becomes how one reasserts one's sovereign State Citizenship and expatriates from the federal plantation, thereby becoming a nonresident alien to the federal plantation of the "United States" just as one is a nonresident alien to China, Guam, and the stars in the sky?

A person who is a citizen of the United States is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens.

- State v Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)

Finally, lest you consider the citations contained herein old, archaic, and inapplicable in today's society, I would remind you that the Constitution must then also be old, archaic, and inapplicable since it precedes each and every of the cites.

And if the question is whether the principles of our forefathers are relevant in today's society, perhaps a more recent citation is in order;

The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 403 (16 Wall. 36), 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government, it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.

- Jones v. Temmer. 829 F.Supp. 1226, at 1232 (1993)

Perhaps you can now understand the purpose of my journey and this paper.

The First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States clearly states that Congress shall not infringe upon my free press.

The CFTC / NFA filed a Complaint against me for publishing without being registered and have since infringed the First Amendment rights of many other Citizens.

CFTC Officials are required by Article VI of the Constitution to execute an Oath of Office in which they vow to uphold the Constitution.

Instead of protecting my Constitutional protections, CFTC / NFA officials upheld agency statutory authority which authorized that my First Amendment Constitutional right to publish might be infringed.

To me, these government employees violated their Oath of Office and, thereby, perjured their Oath of Office.

I further believe that they committed treason by conspiring to erode the Constitutional protections of We The People.

The intent of the Bill of Rights was to limit the infringements of government.

Do you feel that the federal government is constrained in ANY of its actions today?

If Constitutional protections which are clearly stated have failed to protect me, why do you think that ANY of the other Constitutional protections which are not as clearly stated, widely known, and held sacred by The People will ever protect you in situations which are less clearly stated?

Is the Law of the Land, as now practiced on the Federal Plantation, any different than that of Bosnia or Rwanda?

Is this the true state of affairs?

I so fear the answer to this question that I now am trying with all effort to refute the conclusions stated in my own paper and am asking all concerned Americans for help in this effort.

I have prepared and have disseminated this paper to many in positions of knowledge and authority, such as Constitutional professors at university law schools, and so on.

I would prefer and even pray that the arguments stated herein prove refutable.

I have also, however, forwarded details of the many felony offenses I believe I have witnessed during my journey to Congressional representatives and senators from Oklahoma. These specifically include Steve Largent, Tom Coburn, Don Nickles, Jim Inhofe, Frank Istook, and congressmen and senators from other States, many of whom are on the House and Senate Agriculture Committe which oversees the CFTC and NFA.

I have also reported my witness to the United States Attorney for criminal prosecution and to Janet Reno, Department of Justice.

I have also reported my witness to the Inspector General attached to the CFTC.

I have also reported my witness to the National Small Business Ombudsman.

I have been deeply struck by the silence of these parties.

Is such silence any wonder in light of the benefit members of Congress receive in their position as King?

Such silence is especially offensive to We The People when one considers that CFTC officials gave the NFA regulatory authority over We The People without requiring that NFA officials first execute an Oath of Office as required by Article VI, Constitution for the United States of America, and without subjecting the NFA to comply with the full provisions of the Freedom of Information Act / Privacy Act (5 USC 552 and 5 USC 552a).

Who among these government officials will uphold the Constitution and act to correct these frauds upon We The People and our Posterity?

Who among them will uphold their Oath of Office?

Sincerely,

FRANK A. TAUCHER