In which do you live?

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 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 others, and each has citizens of its own who owe its allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.

In the united states of America "we the people" are sovereign over and above that of government. As such, the government only has the authority to have those specific powers that have been delegated to it through our constitutions. As stated in LEGAL TENDER CASES, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) (also refered to as Julliard v Greenman);

But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld.

In other words, the United States, Inc. has total jurisdiction only within its territory. It's territory is not within the states except for enclaves the states have ceded to the federal government. The reader should note that unless a Supreme Court case is repealed, it still stands as the authority in law. As sovereigns, the federal government does not have the authority over "we the people" that it presumes to take with all of the laws passed on the federal level. As defined on Dictionary.com a sovereign is;

1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.
2. a person who has sovereign power or authority.
3. having supreme rank, power, or authority.
4. supreme; preeminent; indisputable: a sovereign right.
5. greatest in degree; utmost or extreme.
6. being above all others in character, importance, excellence, etc.

As you can see by these definitions, there cannot be two sovereigns in the same country. In the case of the united states of America, it is we the people who are sovereign as individuals which makes each of us highest authority in our lives. We all have equal and highest authority over and above the government and other people from other countries. That is why the rights protected under the US Constitution do not apply to people (or prisoners) from other countries when they come here until such time as they become people of the usA. The government, therefore, cannot also be sovereign. Basically, we still have a free country, you just have to know in which country uou are domiciled. The Supreme Court has ruled that there are actually two separate United States. The government is sovereign in one of them, and we the people are sovereign in the other.

One of these "United States" is the one that most of us as Americans think of when we say that we are US Citizens. That is the one in which we the people are sovereign. Unfortunately, most Americans have been fooled into transferring themselves into the second United States in which the federal government is the sovereign and "we the people" are not. The method of transfer is usually done through signing an IRS form.

The particular cases in which the Supreme Court defined the two "United States" were, in 1901, Downes v Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 and, upheld in 1945 by Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652.

The Downes v. Bidwell case was brought when the United States was attempting to charge a higher tariff to goods imported from Puerto Rico which the US had recently acquired. Article 1, §8, Clause 1 states;

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States (emphasis added);

The plaintiff was arguing that it was unconstitutional for there to be higher tariffs charged for imports from Puerto Rico since it was now a territory of the United States of America. With a vote of 5 to 4, the judges ruled;

"Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which the Congress had exclusive legislative authority." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244

This opened the devils lair to the biggest scam that anyone has ever been able to pull off in history. It enabled the United States federal government to start passing "municipal" law that has no Constitutional impact in the united states of America, but is enforceable in the federal government's United States where the federal government is the sovereign instead of we the people. It is also consistent with Article 1, §8, Clause 17

The Dissenting Opinion

The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice John Marshall Harlan in which he predicted much of what has occurred.

"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of the restrictions; the other to be maintained by the Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to...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 result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era legislative absolutism...It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of government outside the Supreme law of the land finds lodgement 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

The result of this opinion is a legislature that passes laws for two separate countries. They just do not expose which one they are in session for during a given session. The intent is to fool Americans into believing they have jurisdiction where they do not. And it is just about the money.

The Other Case

In 1945 a second case was brought, the result of which was to uphold the first case. In Hooven and Allison Co. V. Evatt, 34 U.S. 652 the Supreme Court defined the two separate "United States" and stated that it would be the last time that it would address the "official definitions" of the United States. The thought here is the Supreme Court justices did not want to make it too obvious that there were two different United States, since the result would be an exposure of the fraudulent income tax system.

The ruling in part stated;

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.

This opinion resulted in a legal definition as found in Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition to be;

1. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations
2. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends
3. It may be the collective names of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

The reader should note this definition has since been removed.  It does not appear in the 8th edition.

Just to clarify what the second definition means, we can refer to the US Constitution Article 1, §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, 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

The reader will note that the "United States" only has sovereignty over those specific areas and an approval of the state legislatures is required for the federal government to purchase space from the states. That is because in the states, the states are sovereign over the federal government. That is why the state can determine what the speed limits are, the drinking age is and a criminal has to be extradited to another state where a crime is committed just like a criminal would have to extradited from Canada to a state of the union if that is where he were found.

It is important to note which is the case when, for example, the United States is suing an individual in civil court. The "United States" argued in We the People Foundation, Inc. v. United States of America, "The United States, as a sovereign, may not be sued without its consent, the terms of which determine the court's jurisdiction." However, in the united States which is the "collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution", the "United States" is not the sovereign, because the people are the sovereigns in those "united states", not the "United States". There cannot be two different sovereigns occupying the same space. When we the people are the sovereigns, we are the highest authority and our permission is required before we can be sued. In We the People Foundation, Inc. v the United States of America, the United States is the sovereign, because We the People Foundation is an organization granted "tax exempt" status by an organization that only exists in the "United States" that falls under the second definition above.

This just served as further evidence of the two "United States". Since Bob Schulz had applied to the IRS for "tax exempt" status for his organization, the IRS presumed that they had jurisdiction over him and that he was a subject of the second "United States" (the corporation). Bob Schulz did not challenge this jurisdictional authority and actually waive his rights of sovereignty by applying for the tax exempt status. In the "united states of America" in which the people are the sovereigns, there is no income tax, because the Constitution still does not allow for a direct unapportioned tax to be laid upon the states by the federal government.

Defend Freedom™