People or Citizen ? Which one are you ?
What follows is a combination of Notes from a document named above located at 
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm and my addition of a transcribed video of Bill Thornton as he was talking about this document. This I file under HISTORY because Bill has a firm grasp of American History as well as many other topics on Rights, as you will read. Without the transcript the document falls flat in my opinion. His video gives depth and understanding to the words. And who am I ? Just another guy; one of the People like you: B.W.Cornwell

FIRST you can read the document as it was presented and following the document I have the transcription of Bill's Video on this subject. In my opinion, the transcription is more in depth.

People or Citizen ? Which one are you ?

PEOPLE:  The Preamble does not specifically define the word "People." Nevertheless, the definition becomes apparent in the context of the other words and prior history.

HISTORY:  Before the United States existed, there was no legal government. 
A group of representatives, acting "in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies," declared the independence of the colonies from the British Crown and the state of Great Britain. From the beginning, in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the people were acknowledged as the source of authority, i.e. the sovereignty which authorized the Declaration of Independence. Next came the 1778 Articles of Confederation. The states that existed by the authority of the people, created those Articles while in Congress assembled. That didn't work as well as expected. In 1787 the people themselves came forth "to ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" [see Preamble]. On September 17th, 1787, the states held a convention and all those present unanimously joined in. [see last paragraph of U.S. Constitution] So, in 1787, unanimous concurrence was achieved and the Constitution was born, later to be ratified.

PREAMBLE  
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

STRUCTURE OF PREAMBLE
TRUSTOR: We the People [trustors]
VENUE: of the United States
PURPOSE: in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
BENEFICIARY: to ourselves and our Posterity,
ENABLING ACTION 1: do ordain [we declare the law]
ENABLING ACTION 2: and establish [bring into existence]
WHAT: this Constitution [articles of incorporation for trust]
TRUSTEE: for the United States of America. [trustee]

ANALYSIS OF PREAMBLE
The Preamble defines the context in which the remainder of the Constitution must be interpreted. Most of it is self explanatory. Here's an explanation that points to popular sovereignty:

After the Declaration of Independence, but before the ordainment and establishment of the Constitution, the people of the United States pretty much handled their own affairs using the common law. They were not subject to any higher authority other than the authority of the common law as administered by the people themselves (self governance). Although the states did exist, they only existed by the authority of the people. Every man was a king, and every woman a queen--and none had any subjects. Upon declaring our independence, we all became sovereigns and members of the peerage (nobility).

"The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S."

Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
"D." = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)

The enabling actions in the Preamble are significant because there is simply nothing in the use of those words to imply that the People relinquished any of their own power and authority. The People declared the law (ordain) without taking away from themselves the authority to declare law again in the future. The People established the Constitution without taking away from themselves the authority to establish anything else in the future. In other words, the people gave birth to the Constitution without giving up any of their own power and authority.

What was before, continues to be so today.
From the context of the Preamble, one may conclude that the laws of the United States do not apply to People. The People, as ordainers and establishers of the country are sovereigns of the country, may not be involuntarily subjected to the laws of the United States.
Because of Amendment X ("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," the government has no authority, and cannot assume any authority over the People. Government powers may not reach beyond that which is constitutionally granted. In order for the government to subject People to its law it is necessary for the People to relinquish their sovereignty. Sovereignty is a natural right which cannot lawfully be relinquished involuntarily. Any removal of sovereignty must be accomplished voluntarily by the subject himself.

DEFINITION OF CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES

HISTORY
Before ratification of the Amendment XIV , there was no legal definition of the term "citizen of the United States." The term was used, but only generally. After the Civil War the slaves were freed but there was no legal basis to recognize them as having any rights. Amendment XIV partially solved that problem.

"Free the slaves," was the rallying cry combined with the Civil War that resulted in Amendment XIV. Amendment XIV created a new class of person called "citizen of the United States." Any ex-slave could now claim citizenship, and, by the way, so could any of the People if they so chose to do. Amendment XIV made possible the voluntary relinquishment of personal sovereignty.
It was also during the mid 1800's that the various governments took control of the school systems. The curriculum shifted from civics (the study of natural rights and common law) to American government (the study of civil privileges and statutory law). Emphasis was also refocused on "good citizenship". To blunt the people's perception, the civil privileges were called civil rights. The transition from teaching "natural rights" to teaching "civil rights" took about 100 years (from the 1850's to the 1950's). During the 1950's the school systems changed the courses named from "Civics" to "American Government." Hardly anyone now is aware of the subject of civics as a school course.

The phrase, "citizens of the United States," is defined in the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment XIV:

AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1. "All 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Section 5. "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

STRUCTURE OF AMENDMENT XIV
WHO: All persons
QUALIFICATION:
(A) born or naturalized in the United States, and (B) subject to the jurisdiction thereof
PURPOSE: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
ENFORCED BY: The Congress
ENFORCEMENT METHOD: Legislation
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENT XIV
As discussed above, the People are sovereign. The People are not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, even though they are born in the United States.
Amendment XIV inverts the relationship. One of the qualifications to be a citizen of the United States is that one must be born or naturalized in the United States. Another qualification is that one must be, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is not possible to be a citizen of the United States without being born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But, if you are born or naturalized, and if you are subject to the jurisdiction, then you automatically qualify as a citizen of the United States.

From the point of view of the federal enforcers, the qualifications are worked in reverse. They reverse-interpret Amendment XIV as saying that if you say you are a citizen of the United States, then that automatically means you are totally subject to its jurisdiction [and have been born or naturalized]. This opinion is not shared by the judicial branch. See 14 C.J.S. 426, 430:

    The particular meaning of the word "citizen" is frequently dependent on the context in which it is found[25], and the word must always be taken in the sense which best harmonizes with the subject matter in which it is used[26].

    "One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for other purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for political purposes[27]. So, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as such he is entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property, even though he is not vested with the suffrage or other political rights[28].

    "[25] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore, 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
    [26] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore. 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
          La.--Lepenser v Griffin, 83 So. 839, 146 La. 584
          N.Y.--Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N.Y. 454
    [27] U.S.--The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322
          --Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208
          Md.--Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82
          Mass.--Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531
          R.I.--Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com'rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212
    [28] Mass.--Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568"

In any case, if you fail to object to the government's view of citizenship, then you will most certainly be subjected to the laws of the government. That means no rights, only privileges. To see a list of privileges granted or denied to the citizens (there is no list for the People's natural rights because the People automatically have all rights), see People's rights vs citizen's rights.

ONE OF THE PEOPLE OR ONE OF THE CITIZENS?
The first issue to be resolved in any court proceeding is that of jurisdiction. Does the one entity have jurisdiction over the other entity? One should never go into court without a clear understanding as to whether he is there as a citizen, or there as one of the people.
If you claim you are a citizen of the United States, then it is strongly implied (though not necessarily true) that you are subject to the laws of the United States. On the other hand, if you are one of the People, then it is legally implied that you are a legal king, with a sovereignty superior to that of the United States, and subject only to the common law of the other kings (your peers). In short: the People are superior to the government, the government is superior to the citizens. That is the hierarchy.

PEOPLE ---> GOVERNMENT ---> CITIZENS
As a king you "are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." You can do what you want to do when you want to do it. You have your own property and your own courts. There is no limit as to what you may do other than the natural limits of the universe, and the sovereignty of a fellow sovereign. You should treat the other sovereign in accordance with the Golden Rule, and at the very least must never harm him. Your sovereignty stops where the other sovereignty begins. You are one of the owners of the American government, and it is their promise that they will support your sovereignty (i.e. they have promised to support the Constitution and protect it from all enemies). You have no allegiance to anyone. The government, your only [public] servant, has an allegiance to you.
As a citizen, you are only entitled to whatever your sovereign grants to you. You have no rights. If you wish to do something that would be otherwise illegal, you must apply for a license giving you special permission. If there is no license available, and if there is no specific permission granted in the statutes, then you must apply for special permission or a waiver in order to do it. Your only allegiance is to your sovereign (the government), and that allegiance is mandated by your sovereign's law (the government, though not absolutely sovereign, is sovereign relative to you if you claim to be a citizen of the sovereign).

Here is a typical example:
As one of the People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.
As one of the citizens, you may not travel by automobile unless you are either a licensed motor vehicle driver, or you are a passenger with permission to be on board. Gun ownership is a privilege subject to definition and regulation. You do not have a right to a jury trial in all cases, and no right to grand jury indictment--a trial is a trial by the government, not the people.

VIDEO : People or Citizen ? Which one are you ?

When this country was founded it was originally just a bunch of revolutionaries who broke away from England and the King cancelled all the Charters so there basically was no connection to the King in Great Britain and ourselves anymore. As far as the King was concerned he still owned everything and as far as we were concerned he didn't. But there was no legal connection because the King revoked all the Charters. And we made our own statement of Independence. At that point there was no government; not legally, so everybody became a sovereign. 

Some of us sovereigns who formed organizations that were called Colonies (now they're called states). These organizations got together and created a group called the Confederation. They had the Articles of Confederation and that worked for a while until realizing that really didn't work so each of the states sent their Emmisaries to a meeting. 

At this meeting these Emmisaries went off on a tangent and said, "What we really need to do is rewrite this whole thing." But this time, instead of the states doing it, they did it as People. Still Sovereign. And the theory they had was the Lockean Theory (See John Locke - Philosopher - as opposed to Hobbes). Hobbes said that power comes from the top and goes down to the People. John Locke said that Power comes from the People and then goes to the government. So our basic philosophy is Lockean. So they wrote the Preamble as follows:

PREAMBLE  
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So WE are still acting with our Sovereign Powers - and what we said, when we read through the Constitution, toward the end it says basically, "Okay, here's the game plan. If nine of you organizations that call yourselves states will come on board with this plan then it's a go. If we don't at least get nine of you then it's a no-go."  But the People put it together and proposed it and told the states they could volunteer into it. The states did just that and so now we had the united states of America. They were all contracted in. 

There are actual court cases that recognize that the United States of America, as it's presently constituted, is by the authority of the People and not by the authority of the states, and the states are contracted in. And the People are still soveriegn because it says WE ordain and establish this Constitution for WHO? The United States of America. 

So, what does ORDAIN and ESTABLISH mean? Ordain means to authorize; to make law. Establish means we actually put it on paper so we could read it, publish it, spread it around. There is nothing about those two words, ordain and establish, that takes away from our sovereignty. We're still kings. 

Well, this is very painful to government. They couldn't stand that so they had to figure a way . . . and don't ever underestimate these people . . . they think in 100 or 200 year terms, and one of the first signs of that (there were many signs) was when they took over the first mandatory public school.  You have to understand, when we broke away from England that we were a mature society. We were not just a bunch of Colonists running around trying to figure out what to do. We had education. We had knowledge. We had people who were experienced and educated in History. Do you realize that in 1776 that Harvard University (which is owned by a church) was over 100 years old? So, we are not just a bunch of bushmen running around in the forest wondering what to do. 

We put together a really excellent system, and the more I study it, the more I see that those guys were sharp. BUT, no matter how sharp they were, they did MISS ONE POINT. At that time, and for many decades, all Education was pretty much PRIVATE. Parents got together, hired the teachers for their kids, had real local control; they had real home schooling. So, in the 1850s, the government (city ?) brought out the Military and escorted the first children for the first MANDATORY PUBLIC SCHOOL. (That is TREASON). There were already public schools but that was the first mandatory public school. 

WHY was a mandatory PUBLIC SCHOOL so important ? Well, THEY couldn't change the Constitution. There was too much resistence there. So they changed the Education System. From the 1850s to the 1950s they gradually phased out the subject of CIVICS. They replaced it with American Government. Did you ever take that class or Social Studies in school? They did all this gradually so it would not be blatently apparent what they we "up to". 

WHAT is CIVICS ? Civics is the STUDY of PERSONAL RIGHTS. 
It's that branch of Political Philosophy dealing with personal rights. Once the Government gained control of the Curriculum they stripped out the things that were troublesome to government. Things like YOUR RIGHTS. If you are reading this right now then you are basically studying CIVICS. And that is really what we are doing when we go to COURT. But stripping out Civics and taking control of the school system wasn't enough for these (treasonous) people in government because THE PEOPLE ARE STILL SOVEREIGN. 

Some people understood what all this "stripping away of our rights" was all about so they had the Civil War, and "supposedly" it was over the issue of Slavery. I can tell you, and I've seen it with my own eyes, the official reason for the Civil War. I saw the document that was signed by President Lincoln. It was on display at the Huntington Library. That document is privately owned but on loan to the library. "I (Bill Thornton) happened to go there when I heard this document would be there, so I can say I've actually seen it. "  

The reason for that war: Lincoln attacked the southern states for failure to pay their taxes. That is the legal reason because the Federal Government had to LIVE off of the states. There was no income tax. And what's bad about all that too is that MONEY is POWER and the states were able to keep the Federal Government under control, pretty much, because they were the SOURCE of the Money, and the Federal Government got quite desparate when the source of their income was trying to leave, so they used FORCE to try to keep them in the Union. 

So they had that little fiasco called the Civil War, and in 1868, again using slavery as their excuse, they came through with some Amendments supposedly to help free the slaves. One of them was the Thirteen Amendment. I'm not talking about "the LOST 13th Amendment", but the OTHER Thirteenth Amendment. But the REAL thing was the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment because it defined the term CITIZEN of the United States. 

You have two terms in the Constitution that are defined constitutionally. 
One of them is TREASON and the other is CITIZEN of the United States. 
There are no other definitions in the Constitution. 
So, what does it take to be a CITIZEN of the United States? Well, you have to "qualify". 
So what do you need to qualify? It gives two qualifications in order to be a citizen: 
(1) You have to be Born here or Naturalized.
(2) You have to be SUBJECT to the Jurisdiction of the United States.
Did you see that word: subject ? Subjected to what? The jurisdiction of the United States.

The People are sovereign. They are NOT subjects. Not subjects to anybody. At most, if you're one of the people of the united states, you are subject to your fellow sovereigns; in the form of Grand Jury Indictments and Petite Jury 100% conviction. That's a trial by the people and not a trial by the government.

When a government does a prosecution they prosecute on information. They appear with information before the Magistrate. The Magistrate functions like a one man grand jury; he decides whether there's a case there and, of course as we all know, he usually "rubber stamps" it telling to go ahead and do the prosecution. And then you have the next trial which they say you can have a jury if you're talking a criminal proceding, but in fact those juries are ADVISORY Juries. About the only place I know where Common Law might be used is in an actual murder trial because they actually go and get an indictment to a grand jury, because they don't do it on information; they do it on indictment. But then THAT is questionable too because NONE of the grand juries in the United States has 25 PEOPLE. It's always fewer than 25. So that's another whole subject area of discussion right there. They might have 21 or 23 but never 25. So it's a legistated, statutorially defined grand jury rather than a Common Law Grand Jury.

I've played with the thought : What if we got 25 of us together and officially notified the government that we are a Grand Jury and started INVESTIGATING? What if we went to the Court Administrator and said, "How about giving us a room we can meet in?" But again, that's another topic . . . 
. . . but if you do want to read about Grand Juries, read Article 61 of the Magna Carta and you'll see the entire procedure for setting up a Grand Jury, and what the powers of a Grand Jury really are. 

Anyhow . . . so a citizen is defined as:  
(1) You have to be Born here or Naturalized.
(2) You have to be SUBJECT to the Jurisdiction of the United States.
So if you're subject to jurisdiction of the United States you are no longer sovereign.
If you're Subject (SLAVE) to the jurisdiction then you have a Master.

So let's look at the PREAMBLE a little closer: 
The Preamble does not specifically define the word "People." Nevertheless, the definition becomes apparent in the context of the other words and prior history. And so, prior to the United States, before it existed, there was no legal government.

A group of representatives, acting "in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies," declared the independence of the colonies from the British Crown and the state of Great Britain. From the beginning, in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the people were acknowledged as the source of authority, i.e. the sovereignty which authorized the Declaration of Independence. 

And by the way, President Lincoln considered the Declaration of Independence as our first Constitution. He said there were three constitutions and that was the first one. Some people are actually incorporating that into their legal papers saying that defines our system.

Next came the 1778 Articles of Confederation. The states that existed by the authority of the people, created those Articles while in Congress assembled. That didn't work as well as expected. In 1787 the people themselves came forth "to ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" [see Preamble]. 

Let's analyze that Preamble because I want you to get a better understanding:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

See, we have a laundry list of tasks, and by the way, everything you see there, everything in there is an ELEMENT of a TRUST. You've heard of Trusts? The People are the Trustors. The Trustees are the United States of America. The purpose of the Trust is to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty. The Beneficiaries of the Trust are ourselves and our posterity.

So, the the United States of America is NOT a Country. 
It's the STATES that are the independent countries.
The United States; that a TRUST; a CORPORATION. How can you tell it's a Corporation? 
It's easy: all corporations have Presidents, Vice Presidents, Secretaries, and Treasurers.
States have Governors. Or Counties have Governors.  

STRUCTURE of a TRUST
TRUSTOR: We the People [Trustors]
VENUE: of the United States
PURPOSE: in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
BENEFICIARY: to ourselves and our Posterity,
ENABLING ACTION 1: do ordain [we declare the law]
ENABLING ACTION 2: and establish [bring into existence]
WHAT: this Constitution [articles of incorporation for the trust]
TRUSTEE: for the United States of America. [trustee]
ALL CORPORATIONS ARE A TRUST. 

As a side note: I've always advocated, if you want to set up a Trust, set up a Corporation for profit or non-profit corporation, to set up a NON-PROFIT CORPORATION. Why? Because that's the Trust where all the rich people use to protect their assets, their income, and get tax exemptions, and the whole bit. And so the IRS is not going to attack that Trust. You're basically immune from an IRS attack with a non-profit corporation if you follow all their little rules. And the rules are designed so the government gets no money. (AND WHO controls the MONEY? THE FED, a private company not even located in the U.S.) It's not an accident they're set up that way. You can set up other Trusts, and they're legally correct and everything, but WHAT did you DO? You ran up a red flag. You ran up the "Jolly Roger" on a flag pole. You said, "Come Get Me". So you can be right. And you can get a nice fight on your hands. Maybe, I don't know. But, just as a little aside, I like non-profit corporations because of that. And I'm not taking away the value of the other kinds of Trusts BUT, if you really wanna beat the system . . . that's how to do it. That's why the rich don't pay taxes. Leona Helmsley said, "Only the little people pay taxes."

So anyway . . . the Trustee is the United States of America and then we have the ANALYSIS of the PREAMBLE: The Preamble defines the context in which the remainder of the Constitution must be interpreted. Most of it is self explanatory. 

When you talk with an Attorney about the Preamble, and you say, 
"Well, what is the significance of the Preamble?" And the answer the Attorneys give is,
"Well, there really is no significance. It's just an introductory kind of thing."
The explain it as if that's not even part of the Constitution. And he's right; from HIS point of view because the Attorneys all deal with STATUTORY LAW. They are all inside that "shadow" of the Constitution. Whereas, the Preamble sets the FOUNDATION for what this Constitution is all about: "We the People" ordain  and establish "this system" for YOU GUYS over there. This is how we want you guys to run this for OUR benefit. These are your Operating Rules.

The Constitution does NOT apply to the PEOPLE, you and me. WE are in our SOVEREIGN capacity. We can dump that any time we want. And how do we dump it? My favorite way to dump it is to go to COURT and make them "tow the line". (WE are their BOSS and THEY are our employees.) That's what I did one time: went to court, the judge issued an order, I issued an order vacating his order. Later on he forgot so he issued an order so I issued a second order that vacated his second order and I fined him for contempt of court. 

So the Preamble sets the whole character of the GAME. So if you, in your sovereign capacity, choose not to play the game, that's YOUR RIGHT. Just think of it this way; if you owned a company and you hired somebody, and you said to that somebody, "You're going to be the Manager. I'm going to let you run the company and I'm going to be the Janitor." So you're the janitor and cleaning up around the place that you own, is there anything stopping you from taking over the manager's job anytime you want to? NOT AT ALL. So that is the relationship that we have with the Judge. When you own the country then HE WORKS FOR YOU. And if he isn't not doing the job you are entitled to order him right out.

Okay then . . . after the Declaration of Independence, but before the ordainment and establishment of the Constitution, the people of the United States pretty much handled their own affairs using the common law. Everybody was educted in the Common Law so that is what made it possible. 

I'm paraphrasing here but Thomas Jefferson basically said, 
"Ignorance and Liberty cannot co-exist."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before it became the United States of America, when it was just Colonies (there's a SKIP in the video so we lost that segment. Jumping to the next subject in the video then . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill is talking about some guy and a jury of "peers" and this guy knew what a peer was. 
The judge could not find one. He could not find a single potential member of the jury who would admit that he wasn't a citizen. Nobody would admit they were a member of the sovereignty. Finally the Judge sent the Sheriff out to see if he could find a some peers but couldn't find any. They had to dismiss the case because they couldn't assemble a proper jury.

So, here's a court case in Lansing versus Smith that occurred in New York
Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York) 
By the way 4 Wendel 9 means volume 4 page 9  . . . what that is is back in the early days of our court system the court records were the personal records of the Clerk (Wendel was the Clerk).
A lot of these early records got lost because they were personal records; they were in the clerks homes and things happen. So, when they cite those old cases they cite the clerk's name. So, it's volume 4 of Wendel page 9 and the year was 1829.

Anyway, in that case, Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York), the court said,
"The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. 

Now, "BY HIS PREROGATIVE" What are your RIGHTS? Well, they are whatever you say they are.
Your ONLY limitation on your rights is that you may not impose your will on another sovereign.
You can CONTRACT with another sovereign but you cannot impose your will on him. So YOUR rights stop where my rights start and my rights stop where your rights start. There is an invisible border between us that we have to RESPECT. Of course, if we get into a dispute about it, that's what the court process is all about. 

But basically THIS is the important CONCEPT, that all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Do you want to know what the King's rights were, or are? He'll tell you. Just ask him. Those are my rights. So, if I want to drive down the left side of the street that is MY prerogative and I call that a RIGHT.   

BUT, we have (at least you've heard it advertised) this PRINCIPLE that YOU are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. And what is the basis? The basis is, "DID YOU HARM SOMEONE" ? If you have no corpus delicti . . . if there's no body at the crime then there is NO BASIS for prosecution. You are presumed innocent if nothing went wrong. You must of had things under control.
BUT, if you screw up, then the penalties are VERY SEVERE.

For comparison . . . in our current (CORRUPT) system the penalty for first time burglary is what? 30 days? Isn't that what it is under their statutory penal code? Something like that; 30 days for minor burglary. Well, under COMMON LAW it is the DEATH PENALTY. If you have ever been burglarized, I'm sure you felt like killing the one(s) that did it. So, the statutes are rather KIND to criminals. 

So, your RIGHTS are by YOUR prerogative. Now let's compare that with Citizenship.
A citizen is subject (slave). But let's get into that. It's the 14th Amendment:
"Before ratification of the Amendment XIV , there was no legal definition of the term "citizen of the United States." The term was used, but only generally. It was not a legal term. It was a conversational term. After the Civil War the slaves were freed but there was no legal basis to recognize them as having any rights. Amendment XIV partially solved that problem.

If you're a CITIZEN of the United States, which all the slaves were, then Amendment 14 imposed on the states the requirement that they must accept that person as a citizen of that state if he's living there. Because there was no legal basis, from the states' point of view, of recognizing these slaves that were no freed. Because they came from out of the country. Even if they were born here they were from out of the country. 

BUT look what happened . . . the slaves were privately owned and got released into what amounted to public ownership. Citizen of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction. They are now publicly owned. But what a neat deal; isn't it nice to have slaves for whom you are not responsible to feed, or cloth them, or house them? And yet you have control of them.
---------------------------------------------------
Another damn skip in the video . . . whoever edited the video chopped it making no logical step. But no matter because every sentence Bill utters is a GEM.
---------------------------------------------------
Show me where I'm wrong. You have 30 days in which to file a paper saying why this order I just issued is incorrect. I have never had a single opposition paper filed . . . ever. Interesting. I've had them dance around my orders. 

So anyway . . . you can pick and choose when and where you want to be a sovereign.
Citizens are subjects who have priviledges granted by the master. They have no rights.
If you are going to be a 100% citizen then you a 100% subject. If you're a part time citizen then you can step out of that role anytime you want.

Now what's the difference between People and Citizens? The difference is EDUCATION.
KNOWLEDGE. If YOU say you are one of the People then you are one of the People.
The BURDEN is on THEM to prove that you are not. Any claim that you make about yourself . . . you don't have to prove it. The burden is on the other side, whoever makes a Claim against you; they have to prove whatever their claim is. So I claim I'm a sovereign. What is a sovereign? What are a People? To tell you the truth, I can't tell you what a people is. I know I'm one of them but I can't tell you what people are. Or what a people is. By the way that word is correct, either singular or plural.

So, what is a PEOPLE ? Like I said I can't tell you that. But I know what I can tell you is the relationship between people and government. Whatever we are, WE are the ones who ordained and established it so whatever we are you (government) are under us. First comes the PEOPLE. Then came the Constitution. Then came the government. They defined our relationship without defining what we were. 

Audience member asked a question I couldn't make out. Then Bill states:
I've never really researched that but I suspect that an Immigrant who comes here, if he's naturalized, and subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States, then that person would be a publicly owned slave, a citizen. 

Now, can he "break that yoke"? What they do is they contract you in. 
When you take the Oath of Allegience in order to acquire citizenship I think they ask you, "Do you promise all the laws . . ." etcetera. So you actually have a CONTRACT. They didn't miss that point. I suspect you could break the contract BUT I don't know how. One person I know researched it. He says that you have to be "OF THE LAND" and he claims that you cannot move your sovereignty; whatever state you were born in. I don't know if I'd necessarilly agree to that but, to tell the truth, I've never really researched the Immigrant question. BUT I'll tell you this: 
IF the country that you came from is a REPUBLIC then it is the same system that we have here. Because the very definition of a Republic involves personal sovereignty. 

A Republic is at once the best form of government for the most Freedom and the worst form of government for enslaving people. What makes a Republic the best ? Everbody is EDUCATED, knows the difference, and chooses to be people. What makes a Republic the worst ? The people don't know the difference and they allow themselves to be citizens and they get abused. It is what you do with citizens! They're just property. If you don't know the difference then how can you break out of the citizenship shell? 

Remember the Ayatollah Khomeini ? He chose the Republican form of government for his organization because those people over there knew the difference. The populace is educated. They chose to be people. That way the laws that were passed did not apply to them. Then they could send their police out to beat up on the citizens whenever they felt it was necessary. So, a Republic is a wonderful form of government IF everybody is educated. It's terrible form of government if you're ignorant.

The whole reason for bringing this up is to explain to you the difference between people and citizen, and WHY it is, when you're a citizen you have no rights. I think you have a good idea now from all that I've told you. A citizen has no rights because he's a subject. A citizen gives up his rights for privileges. 

When you talk about CIVIL RIGHTS, if you really speak the language correctly those are called Civil Privileges. NATURAL RIGHTS are what People have. Civil Privileges are what citizens have. All of these citizens running around demanding their Civil Rights are really saying : "Certain priviliges have been legislated for our benifit (or for their control) and we demand that these Civil Rights be acknowledged."   

Well, you won't catch me suing for my civil rights. I'll be suing for my Natural Rights.

Civil Liberties are the same idea. Civil liberties are civil rights are the same thing.
It's the "CIVIL" aspect of it that says it's government granted. We are not part of the government when we are people. We are ABOVE the government. S O V E R E I G N T Y
It's a scary thought, isn't it.

So let's go to the Bill of Rights. SEE the document: People's Rights versus Civil Rights
There's a book published by the Senate and is called:
The Constitution of the United States of America ; Analysis and Interpretation
There's a copy available for you to download and read. It's about 2700 pages. 
Every Senator, every Congressman, and the Vice President gets a free copy coming into Office. 
WHY doesn't the PRESIDENT get a copy? Because he is not part of the Congress. 
The Vice President is the President of the Senate. That's why he gets his free copy.
This is what you might call "The Book of Truth" because somebody has got to know how this system is put together. Many congressman don't even open it! A friend of mine went up to his congressman's office and saw the book sitting on the shelf, brand new, never opened.

People's Rights versus Civil Rights was extracted from this analysis book.

Amendments available to U.S. citizens:
    1: Religion (free exercise, establishment), Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition
    2: Right to keep and bear arms
    4: Search and seizure
    5: Double jeopardy,  Self-incrimination,  Just compensation
    6: (protection has been diluted) Speedy trial, Public trial, Jury trial, Impartial Jury, Notice of charges, Confrontation, Compulsory Process, Counsel
    8: Cruel and unusual punishment

Amendments not available to U.S. Citizens:
    3: Quartering troops in homes (no cases)
    5: Grand Jury indictment
    7: Jury trial in civil cases
    8: Bail (mostly)
        Excessive fines under equal protection

The above list of what is and what is not available to U.S. Citizens is CONTRADICTORY to the Video. In the video Bill says that Citizens do NOT have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I do not know which came first, the video or People's Rights versus Civil Rights document. The document is on Bill's site and it is where I got this list. So, as far as I'm concerned I don't care what any of it says. I'm one of the people so the government can pound tar as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, we are near the end of Bill's lecture on the video. Let's finish it:

Bill: The right to keep and bear arms is not a right. That should touch some hot points here. If you're a People you have a right. In fact you have ALL RIGHTS. What are your rights? Whatever you say they are . . . as long as you don't hurt another one of the sovereign people. 
(Question for Bill from me: It's alright to shoot citizens? )

Under the Common Law we have one rule: DON'T HURT ANYBODY
The Golden Rule: Treat others as you'd have them treat you.
The Christian Bible is the Foundation of the American System of Law
And it goes back further; the Christian Law goes back to the Judaic System of Law.
So, regardless of your belief, our legal system was extracted from those systems.