TRAITORS IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Pt.2
September 18, 2013 Leave a comment
Examples of “Natural Citizen” in U.S. Jurisprudence
by adrien nash sept. 2013
I’ve written a quarter million words regarding natural citizenship but most people are totally in the dark regarding its existence as something real and not something merely legal. Some legal scholars and self-appointed experts are of a persuasion that all citizenship is under the authority of Congress, and of the 14th Amendment, but those who become Americans via those two avenues constitute only about three percent of the population. The other 97% are Americans even before they are born, -predestined to be United States citizens by nature, by right of blood, by patrilineal descent, by the principle of natural membership that’s inherited from one’s source. They are born as citizens by life instead of merely citizens by law. They are born with a primal right of natural membership while those born of outsiders in the U.S. are only born with a legal right of being American adoptees naturalized upon birth.
Also, they are not Americans due to English nor “American common law” but due solely to Natural Law
Natural American citizens cannot avoid being Americans, -from conception their destiny is predetermined and their citizenship is unconditional. Not so with children born of aliens. Everything about their citizenship is conditional, and it only begins after birth. Without birth within U.S. borders there is no citizenship. Without birth to parents who are subject to the full authority of Washington, there is no citizenship because they are not natural citizens. Their citizenship depends on law and the meeting of its demands. If its demands are not met, then citizenship is not conveyed.
But natural citizens do not depend on the meeting of any demands of any law because no law covers their natural membership in their parents’ nation. Their membership is natural, unavoidable, unconditional, predestined, irrevocable, and beyond the authority of government to regulate.
~ ~ ~ ~
Using Google, an “advanced search”* for the term “natural citizen” located this from the HARVARD LAW SCHOOL LIBRARY; -THE VEST POCKET LAWYER (booklet c. 1919 418).
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
~419. The Constitution of the United States gives to every NATURAL CITIZEN, and guarantees to that citizen, political, religious, and civil rights.
~420. Every NATURAL CITIZEN of the United States is first a citizen of the United States. Then, this same citizen of the United States may be a citizen also of any individual state in the union.
[Both statements are patently false. The Constitution does not “give” any rights because our rights are unalienable, -given by “Nature and Nature’s God” and not by the benevolence of government nor legal charter. What they do is attempt to protect them from usurpation and trampling by government by declaring their existence, so that what has been done to the States (vis a vie the obliteration of the 10th Amendment) is not also done to the People. Those rights are guaranteed by nothing other than eternal vigilance against the predations of power-hungry Statists at all levels of government. Congress does not guarantee them because it is their biggest violator, -nor does the military, nor the courts which are highly inclined in this day and age to support ever-greater government power. The judicial system is rife with Statists and socialist who will abrogate individual rights in favor of government rights almost all of the time.
The statement that citizenship is first and foremost federal and then secondarily State connected is only true in the context of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments having been almost completely buried by every Congress for a hundred and fifty years. But it wasn’t so in the beginning. State citizenship was everything, and national citizenship was its consequence. Now let’s explore the significance of the “Pocket Lawyer” using the term: “natural citizen” back in 1919.
~ ~ ~
The use of the adjective “natural” to describe “citizen” is evidence of a form of citizenship which is outside of the legal realm, -pre-dating it, existing as a natural extension of the natural realm which has as a fundamental element of all social groups, the Law of natural membership (off-spring are the same as their parents).
In the realm of national membership we have the natural law of natural citizenship. By that law, all children of citizens are citizens also, just like their parents from whom they inherit their unconditional national membership.
If one parent is an alien, then the off-spring of such a couple will be a hybrid cross-breed citizen with dual citizenship. Such citizens are not eligible to serve as President because their citizenship is not natural and unconditional. ** Obama is not such a citizen because he did not inherit the citizenship of his mother since, for domestic births within marriage, citizenship is inherited from the head of the family, which is the father.
Neither did he inherit American citizenship from his father. Instead, he inherited only provisional Kenyan citizenship. By American law, Obama is still not an American citizen, although he is presumed to be one due to an institutionalized error established by the U.S. Attorney General in 1898. So Obama, instead of being a “natural born citizen” as the Constitution requires, is merely a presumptive political policy citizen whose presumption of citizenship could be nullified with the signature of the Attorney General or the President. Zero chance of that happening.
~ ~ ~ ~
Annual Report of the West Virginia Bar Association
~transcript of Annual Meeting held 1887
West Virginia Bar Association Page 41
I would be glad to know how there can be any distinction without regard to the rights conferred on a corporation and the rights which the NATURAL CITIZEN possesses. No one will contend that a NATURAL CITIZEN may not engage in any sort of business transaction of a pursuit which the law recognizes. How then can it be said that if the right be conveyed to and conferred upon a corporation to carry on business in its corporate name the business has any more public character than the ordinary pursuits of any NATURAL CITIZEN? How can it be said that the rights given that corporation are other than similar rights of a NATURAL CITIZEN?
57th Congress, 2nd Session U.S. SENATE
DOCUMENT No. 46
JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS OVER CORPORATIONS
Corporation Is A Citizen
It is proposed herein, by invoking the aid and guidance of the fundamental rules of justice and equality, to urge upon Congress the necessity for enacting into law the form and substance (if not the exact words) of the bill hereinafter formulated, the design of which is to CORRECT a growing ABUSE and to advance a much desired remedy.
The “CITIZEN” of the Constitution
For more than a half a century the judiciary of the United States, using as a basis a line of reasoning CONTRARY to the Spirit of our national Constitution, has, by a mere
FICTION, construed the word “CITIZEN” as used in Article III, Section 2, to be extended to and include the word “corporation”.
From the foundation of the Government up to 1844 the United States Supreme Court naturally and justly held that “citizen” and “Corporation” had, for all purposes, two separate and distinct meanings.
The word “citizen” in our American system of government was held to mean and include only a natural person who was endowed with the privileges and blessing of the qualifications which made him an American Freeman. That word in those days had as high and as noble a meaning as had the word “King” in the parlance of Europe.
The great Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, gave this meaning and significance to the word “CITIZEN” thus:
“For the term CITIZEN ought to be understood as it is used in the Constitution and as it is used in other laws; that is, to describe the real persons who come into court, in this case in their corporate name.” And again, in the same case, “A corporation aggregate can not, in its corporate capacity, be a citizen.” (5 Cranch, 61.)
~Change Making a Corporation into a Citizen…
Comparison of Corporation; ~Then and Now
~And all this time the powers and privileges of NATURAL CITIZENS have not increased a single iota, so that while it might have been fair to have a NATURAL CITIZEN and a corporate citizen on a par in 1844, at present it only makes an odious comparison.
Hence a remedy is herein suggested to give greater recognition to the just demands of the NATURAL CITIZEN, without injuring or disturbing the rights of the honest and good-intentioned corporate citizen, the design and purpose being to bring back the equality of citizen before the law, be such citizens NATURAL or CORPORATE.
It is respectfully submitted that no honest opposition can be made, -nor will be made, by those truly representing the people -the natural citizens of the land, to a proposition that has as its cardinal principle “equality before the law”.
~ ~ ~
The large corporations of today have members (stockholders) scattered all over the country, and even over several countries. In addition to this, the principle is too well founded and too universally recognized that the corporation, as such, has a separate and distinct IDENTITY, INDIVIDUALITY, and responsibility from its members. Hence the THEORY must be preceded upon that the corporation is itself the entity, the party, the CITIZEN.
The Injustice of the Present System
~I also think that corporations chartered under the laws of the States should, for the purposes of jurisdiction in the Federal courts, be declared to be citizens in each and every State in which they have an office, or in which they carry on or conduct any part of their corporate business. There are hundreds of corporations in this country today which never perform a single corporate act in the State of their creation, except to pay the secretary of state the fees for a certified copy of their charter.
The sole object of the creation of such corporations is to avoid the jurisdiction of the State courts in the States where they do business. To illustrate: There is the Southern Pacific Railroad; it is a Kentucky corporation. It has not now and never had an inch of road or dime’s worth of property in that State, and it never expected or intended to have. The object was to use its TECHNICAL CITIZENSHIP in Kentucky (under the decisions of the Supreme Court) to escape the jurisdiction in the State courts of the States in which
its carried on its business.
If these FRAUDS (-I use the term advisedly) on the jurisdiction of the Federal courts had been exposed, and these corporations made to answer in the State courts of the States in which it they conduct their business, in all suits except those involving Federal questions, there never would have been any necessity to create the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Previous Effort to Secure Relief
Judge Seymour D. Thompson (a gentleman without peer as an authority on the subject of corporation law) very frequently attacked the abuse of jurisdiction: That the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States assented reluctantly to the doctrine stated in the preceding section illustrates one of the most pitiable characteristics of the judicial administration, -the HABITUAL GREED of jurisdiction exhibited by courts and judges, and the insincerity manifested by them in interpreting constitutional provisions and statutes relating to their own jurisdiction.
The question was one of extreme simplicity. It related solely to the meaning with which the framers of the Constitution and of the judiciary act had used one of the plainest, simplest and best understood words in our language, -the word “citizen”.
Never before had it been regarded as referring other than to a single person endowed with the ordinary political privileges and franchises of the country of which he was a resident. Never before had it been used to designate a body of persons, collected or organized in any manner, nor with any faculty whatever.
THE JUDGES KNEW THIS!
They knew that the men who used the word “CITIZEN” in those instruments had no idea that they were describing an artificial collection of persons.
~It is to be borne in mind that the question did not involve the mere question of the jurisdiction of the national courts; it involved something more. All jurisdiction had been apportioned between the national and the State judicatories; and hence the Federal judicatories, in seizing upon a jurisdiction which had not been conferred upon them by the Constitution and judiciary act, seized a portion of the jurisdiction belonging to the States, and DEFRAUDED the State tribunals of a portion of their rightful jurisdiction. It was a plain
case of THEFT of Jurisdiction.
It illustrated a charge which Mr. JEFFERSON, in one of his letters written some years before, had made against the tendencies of the Federal judiciary:
“working like gravity, -by night and by day, -gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a THIEF over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.”
Overruling their former decisions, and under a miserable pretext which involved the DISTORTION of a PLAIN WORD from its natural meaning to a meaning which had NEVER BEFORE been assigned to it, the court now announced the following rule:
“A corporation created by and doing business in a particular state is to be deemed to all intents and purposes as a person, although an ARTIFICIAL PERSON, an inhabitant of the same State, for the purposes of its incorporation, capable of being treated as a citizen of the State, as much as a NATURAL PERSON.
Like a citizen it makes contracts, and though in regard to what it may do in some particulars it differs from a natural person, and in this especially, the manner in which it can sue and be sued, it is substantially, within the meaning of the law, a CITIZEN of the State which created it, and where its business is done, for all the purposes of suing and being sued.”
That statement of the law was probably EXTRA-JUDICIAL, but its authority was established by later decisions against the vigorous dissent of a minority of the court.
The jurisdiction thus seized upon, to continue in the language of Mr. Jefferson, continued to “advance its noiseless step like a thief” until the court had reached the DOCTRINE that, for the purposes of the Federal jurisdiction, a corporation is conclusively presumed to be a CITIZEN of a State under whose laws it is created, and, conversely, that it can not be a citizen of a State other than the State under whose laws it has been created. Stated in another way, this doctrine is that although a corporation is not itself a citizen, yet of ALL THE PURPOSES of federal jurisdiction founded upon diverse citizenship, the stockholders who compose the corporate body by and under the name given them by the statutes of a State are to BE TREATED AS CITIZENS of that State, and are stopped from denying that they are such.
And this is so although all of its business may be prosecuted elsewhere, and all of its offices and places of business may be outside of the State by whose laws it has been created, and all its stockholders may be residents of the State in which it is impleaded in the Federal court as being a citizen of such other State.
The most striking commentary which can be made upon the IMPROPRIETY, if not the CRIMINALITY, involved in the seizure of this jurisdiction, is found in the manner in which it operates in respect of what is now known as the “TRAMP CORPORATION”.
Under the rule thus established, a number of citizens of one State can organize themselves into a corporation under the laws of another State, through the mere aid of an attorney employed there, without acquiring a residence or even temporarily coming within such State, for the purpose of engaging in business in their own State, and can thus succeed in bringing all actions by and against them within their jurisdiction of the Federal courts, ousting the jurisdiction of their own State courts over such actions. (29 Am. Law Rev., 864)
10. JURISDICTION of FEDERAL COURTS OVER CORPORATIONS
~Flagrant Abuse of Existing Law
The injustice in the present construction of the word “citizen” for the purpose of jurisdiction, is not so very VICIOUS per se, but becomes so by the ABUSE which is thereby permitted. ~
It requires very little argument to show the great INJUSTICE, inconvenience, and unnecessary expense suffered by one class of persons by reason of the opening of a JUDICIAL SIDE DOOR which permits another class (of citizens, i.e., corporations) a means of retreat not enjoyed by both.
Futility of State Legislation
This kind of EVIL was undertaken to be remedied by the State of Wisconsin by an enactment which…
Here it will be seen that not only did the legislature do all it could to prevent “foreign” corporations (out-of-state) from invoking Federal jurisdiction, but the corporation itself voluntarily waived its right to invoke that jurisdiction.
~ ~ ~
Here too, the DOCTRINE now in vogue that “Corporation” and “Citizen” means the same for the purposes mentioned was REAFFIRMED by Mr. Justice Hunt in this direct language: “A corporation has the same right to the protection of the laws as a NATURAL CITIZEN and the same right to appeal to all the courts of the country.” Hence it is positively apparent that any relief to be granted to CORRECT THIS EVIL must come from the national Congress.
Voluntary Entrance into Foreign State.
It is a fact that all the States of the Union have laws relating to foreign corporations. ~ It is wholly optional with a corporation whether or not it desires to operate outside the State of its creation. ~ When it goes into that FOREIGN STATE it should be in all respects with the idea that the citizens of that State are entitled to every single privilege to which it (the foreign corporation) is entitled.
It should not ever be with the idea that it is entitled to any advantage over other citizens; and under The DOCTRINE of the EQUALITY OF CITIZENSHIP it should not be permitted to have any advantage; and if it has such, under just legislation should not be permitted to retain it. [criminal “foreign citizens” require EXTRADITION to home jurisdiction for prosecution.]
~Continuing, Mr. Russell, says: This ground of jurisdiction (diversity of citizenship) with its PERVERSION, presently referred to, steadily furnishes about one-third of the cases in the Federal court, nearly all of which one-third are naturally and properly justiciable in the State courts. Unfortunate conflicts of decision have resulted. Citizens have been drawn away from their homes and local courts, and have smarted under the impression that the General Government has a HOSTILE and UNFRIENDLY government, not having THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE at heart.”
And again, as pointed out by this eminent jurist, continuance of the present construction of the word “CITIZEN” as the law of the land is a prolific source of annoyance and hindrance to the Federal courts themselves, and should for that reason be ABOISHED by Congress. ~Congress should abolish this jurisdiction completely; and with it would go, of course, the PERVERSION of this jurisdiction which is exercised over corporations. That PERVERSION and its enormous effect in creating delay in the Federal courts we will now consider.
~Private corporations aggregate are nothing but partnerships with superadded qualities; and the Rights of ARTIFICIAL PERSONS composed. ~ Now, to give the association of citizens (a corporation) a greater right of suit in the courts of the Unites States than is possessed by each and all of the individual citizens composing the association, by means of a PURE FICTION that all have that right, when none in fact may have it, is believed to be an ABUSE more far-reaching in its consequences than any now existing in our courts.
~ ~ ~
But the Supreme Court, in that regard, has refused to follow out the legitimate consequence of its own decisions… Those decisions, in the later history of the court, are believed to have been UNSOUND.
~ It is undoubted that corporations were not within the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution when they created the jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of different states.
~ How is it then that we see daily examples of a corporation suing or being sued in the Federal circuit courts as a citizen of the State incorporating it when, first, not one of the individuals composing it is, in fact, a citizen of that State; and when, (second) every one of the individuals composing it is a citizen of the same State with the opposite party to the suit, and when , (third) all the business of the corporation is transacted outside the State which incorporated it, and all the actual business offices are outside that State, and when, (fourth) all these facts are well known to all concerned in the suit, including the court itself, which takes judicial knowledge of the statute of the incorporating State not requiring members or officers to be citizens, and when the court well knows that the suit does not really involve a controversy properly with the jurisdiction under the judiciary act (citizens of one jurisdiction versus citizens of another).
How is it, I repeat, that we see these suits occurring daily? It is because the Supreme Court has determined that in such cases the facts SHALL NOT COME OUT; -and this for the reason expressly stated, -that if the facts should come out the jurisdiction would be defeated. (Am. Law Rev., supra.)
Protest of Federal Courts.
“One can not wink so hard as not to see that this so-called corporation was one of those elusive, evanescent, will-o’-the-wisp corporations existing only in name and a FRAUD upon the laws of the State where it was attempted to be formed, and equally a FRAUD
on the States or Territories and their citizens in which it carried on its business…by a mere pretense of compliance with the law of a State in which they do not reside, and do not intend to carry on any business, in order that they may ESCAPE ALL LIABILITY for the hazards of the business in which they are engaged, and enjoy the privileges of litigating in the United States courts. These privileges are obtainable under existing…decisions of the courts.
(Owen v. Shepard, 59 Fed., 746.)
The “Thief in the Night”
There is perhaps no better way to show the growth of this jurisdictional ABUSE than by quoting from the decisions which caused it. From these quotations it will be seen that Mr. Chief Justice Marshall denied the right of a corporation to be called a “citizen”; Mr. Justice Wayne allowed the presumption to be entertained, and Mr. Justice Grier completed the ILLUSION by making the PRESUMPTION of citizenship conclusive.
Chief Justice Marshall: The jurisdiction of this court being limited… both parties must be citizens to come within the description. That invisible, intangible, and artificial being, -that mere legal entity, (a corporation aggregate) is certainly not a citizen, and consequently can not sue or be sued in the courts of the United States unless the rights of the members in this respect can be exercised in their corporate name.
Justice Wayne: A corporation created by and doing business in a particular State is to be deemed to all intents and purposes as a person, although an artificial person, -an inhabitant of the same State… -capable of being treated as a citizen of that state as much as a natural person.
Justice Grier: If the declaration sets forth facts [?] from which the citizenship of the parties may be presumed or legally inferred, it is sufficient. The presumption arising from the habitat of a corporation in the place of its creation being conclusive as to the residence of those who use the corporate name and exercise the faculties conferred by it, the allegation that the “defendants are a body corporate by the act of the general assembly of Maryland” is a sufficient averment that the real defendants are citizens of that State.
(Marshall v. B. & O. Railroad Company, 16 How., 328.)
Conclusion ~…Congress is urged to exert its power to give the country a legislative fact which will, in terms, transcend a judicial fiction, to the end that in the eye of the law, as in the spirit of the Constitution, all citizens are equal, be they natural or corporate.
~ ~ ~ ~
* The “advanced search” option only appears on the search page after an initial search has been performed. It’s not present on the initial search page, but is found among various options at the bottom of the page after results are returned. You must enter your term in the “exact words” box.
** Dual Nationality
Dual Nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries. A person who is a dual national owes allegiance to both countries. Dual nationality can occur as the result of a variety of circumstances. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship. U.S. law does not require a person to choose one citizenship over the other. It is prudent, however, to check with authorities of the other country to see if dual nationality is permissible under local law. Dual nationality can also occur when a person is naturalized in a foreign state without intending to relinquish U.S. nationality and is thereafter found not to have lost U.S. citizenship: the individual consequently may possess dual nationality. The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon dual-national U.S. citizens often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts to provide U.S. diplomatic and consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality.