Dear Friends,
I am an 82 year old retired businessman. I am very healthy except for failing vision, which is why this letter is presented in large bold type.
I am well studied in the Constitution and the Founding Fathers and the origin of this country.
THE MEANING OF WORDS
It is my clear understanding that the meaning of many words is constantly changing due to the manner in which words are used by those who commonly use them. That the meanings presented in dictionaries are not determined by the publishers, but by their professional observation of the changing manner in which words are used by those who use them in the general population and otherwise.
This is readily apparent in the modern day dictionary meaning of the words "mouse" and "desktop"; however the previous meanings are not removed, the new meanings are added and numbered in the words meanings in dictionaries. Additionally, the "meaning" of a word is not the same as the "definition" of a word. Dictionaries do not present definitions of words but rather, dictionaries present the various several meanings of words.
Definitions of words are set forth in legislated statutes and insurance policies to establish the specific meanings of such words in certain statutes or insurance policies. These specifically defined meanings are only applicable to the statute or other writing in which such specific meanings are set forth. The word "person", as used in the opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not have any specific meaning as may be set forth in any legal writing.
That is, the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment has the simple meaning as it does in your own day to day common conversations.
In determining the meaning of words used to write the Constitution it is imperative to apply the meaning of those words as was understood at that time.
THE MEANING OF "REPUBLIC"
Here, I am particularly concerned in regard to the meaning of the word "republic" as it was understood 230 years ago, not the meaning as entered in dictionaries here in the twenty-first century, which has been derived from the pledge of allegiance and the wishful thinking of those persons who are too lazy to do their own thinking.
Part of my concern arises from the failure of the Founding Fathers to declare the Federal government they created, to be a republic, in the Constitution they wrote. Could this absence be due to the fact that the word "republic" was not a word that would be favorably received by such men as Patrick Henry, who is reputed to have said he smelled a rat when he read the Constitution as originally presented, and thereafter Henry refused to have anything more to do with that Constitution?
I am well familiar with the claim that Benjamin Franklin made an off-hand remark that they had created a republic, if it could be kept. I find this claim (that he made such a remark), to be somewhat strange. If it was indeed an offhand remark to an inquisitive lady, what would be the expectation that she would have made a note writing down his off-hand remark? Or did she have her iphone there to record what Franklin said?
Why did the Founding fathers include a Constitutional provision declaring that all states were to be guaranteed a republican form of government but included no such declaration in regard to the Federal Government?
What was the meaning of the word "republic" at that time? Where was there ever before a government in the recorded history of man, that was under the control of the common persons? Where is such a provision set forth in the Constitution? Where is there any suggestion what-so-ever in the Constitution that the government created thereunder was to be under the control of the common persons?
As I wrote herein above, the meaning of words changes due to the common usage thereof by those persons who use certain words. Words that are seldom used tend to retain the same meaning for extended periods of time. The word "republic" is not a word frequently used in the day to day conversations or writings of common persons or even in the daily conversations or writings of politicians.
Therefore, is it not likely that the meaning of "republic" has not changed among those persons who most frequently use the word "republic"? Here I set aside the use of the word "republic" by those of the Freedom Movement, because their meaning seems to be derived from and based upon the purported off hand remark of Benjamin Franklin, who is not recorded to have explained what his understanding of that word was at that time. And, why are none of the other Founding Fathers queried in regard to the meaning and use of this word? And the Founders purported intention to create a republican form of government at the federal level?
Would it not be expected that the commoners who were going to be in charge of this new form of government would want and need to know precisely what it was that constitutes a republican form of government?
WHAT IS A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT?
So now I finally arrive at my question, "What, exactly, is it that constitutes a republican form of government?"
This question is especially relevant in consideration of the fact that we have about one hundred countries on this planet at this time that have the word "republic" in the official name of their country, such as , "The People's Republic of China", "The Democratic People's Republic of [North] Korea". "The Cuban Republic", and many more, all of them recognized as being some form of totalitarian dictatorship; many having constitutions.
The empirical evidence seems to clearly establish that a republic is a government organization where there are two classes of political status; (1) to make the rules and (2) another to follow those rules.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION?
A careful reading of the Constitution, as written by the "former" aristocratic ruling Founding fathers, known as "Nobles" under King George III, we find the purpose of the Constitution set forth in the Preamble, in relevant part: "We the people of the United States, in order to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It matters not one whit what the Founders wrote in their writings outside the Constitution, all that which is lawfully relevant is what they actually wrote within that document. Therefore, based on the actual words, the clear and unambiguous wording of this Preamble establishes that the purpose of the Constitution was/is limited to securing the blessings of liberty to the People of the United States and THEIR Posterity. Please pay attention to the clear fact that these words are both limiting and exclusionary! Please take due notice that the word "citizen" is NOT found in either the Preamble or in the Bill of Rights.
The basic foundation of a republic, as determined by observation of the one-hundred odd countries on this planet with the word "republic" in their official name, is that a republic has two political classes, (1), those who make the rules and (2), those who follow those rules.
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE SUBSERVIENT TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
In the Constitution written for the consideration of the United States, the Founders created the ruling class in the Preamble through their devious establishment of the purpose of the Constitution being to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves, being the People of the United States, and their Posterity. Then, in order to surreptitiously establish the foundation for their republican form of government at the Federal level, they created the subservient political class, citizen of the United States, in Section Two of Article One, but with no setting forth of the degree of subservience of such class until the Fourteenth Amendment was declared in effect in 1868. And, there is no provision in the Fourteenth Amendment that declares or establishes that a person born in the United States is automatically determined to be a citizen thereof due to such birth. Please pay attention to the actual words written and not to what you were fraudulently indoctrinated to believe in the government's indoctrination centers, commonly known as "public schools".
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT PREVENTS CITIZENSHIP DUE TO BIRTH
Additionally, the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude provision, prevents any government authority from declaring any person to be a citizen of the United States due to their birth here because citizenship is a condition of political servitude and because of that fact can only be entered into by the intentional voluntary act of the fully informed person as an adult.
CITIZENSHIP CONSTITUTES VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
In regard to the word "citizen" and the term, ""citizen of the United States", these terms constitute an acknowledgment of political subservience to a political superior. Such status is inherent in the word "citizen".
When a free born person claims to be a citizen he is thereby acknowledging he is in a status of political subservience to a political superior. There is no such inherent implication of political subservience in the word "People". The words "people" and "citizen" are not always synonymous; pay attention to the grammatical context, especially in deciphering the hidden codes imbued into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.
As a person who claims to be a citizen of the United States has thereby acknowledged he is politically subservient to a political superior, then the question is, "Who or what political class is such citizen subservient to?
WHO ARE OF THE RULING CLASS?
As this is a republic wherein the purpose thereof is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to the People of the United States and THEIR Posterity, what political class could possible be better positioned to be the governing class than those of the People of the United States class?
This is not as strange as it might first seem. When this country was formed up, everyone present who had been a subject of the British King, was of the People of the Preamble, so they would discern no skullduggery in the wording of the Preamble or the Bill of Rights. The word "citizen" was strange to them as none of them had been referred to as citizens under King George III. It did not occur to them that they could be indoctrinated into political subservience sometime in the future; and if not any of those persons then present there, then their posterity in future generations. That would be us now living here.
HOW I LAWFULLY OPTED OUT OF PAYING INCOME TAX
Because I did not knowingly and intentionally volunteer myself into political subservience to the Federal Government, I cannot be required to file or pay income tax.
Based on the reasoning set forth herein above, I stopped filing or paying income tax back in the early 1960s. The IRS filed charges against me in Federal District Court in Los Angeles California, charging me with intentionally failing to file or pay income tax. These were felonies.
I BEAT THE IRS IN LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES IN FEDERAL COURT
I went to trial in 1970 and walked out in less than five minutes because neither the IRS nor the court judge could present proof that I had volunteered myself into United States citizenship.
That was forty-six years ago and I have never filed or paid or been bothered by the IRS.
HOW MY WIFE DUMPED HER IRS PAYMENT AGREEMENT
When I met my wife five years ago she informed me that she had entered herself into an agreement with the IRS to make $600.00 per month payments on previous income tax deficiencies. She informed me that she had mailed her second check to the IRS just two days prior. I asked her, "You mean day before yesterday?" She agreed. I then advised her to go to her bank and put a stop payment order on that check to the IRS, which she did then do.
I then wrote a simple letter for her to send to the IRS, challenging the IRS to present her proof that the government had gained jurisdiction over her in full compliance with the Thirteenth Amendment. This letter informed the IRS that she was not going to send in any more payments unless and until the IRS presented her proof that the government had gained political jurisdiction over her without the government having violated the prohibition of involuntary servitude prohibition of the Thirteenth Amendment.
About ten days later she received a nasty threatening letter from a different IRS office. This letter did not mention her first letter to the other IRS office. She then sent a copy of her first letter to the second IRS office with a similar cover letter to the second office.
About ten days later she received a nasty threatening letter from the state income tax office. She sent copies of her two letters to the IRS to this state tax office, together with an appropriate cover letter to the state tax office.
All of that was over five years ago and she has heard no more from the IRS or state office and continues to receive her Social Security deposits every month.
I have mentioned this to the eleven hundred members of my Yahoo group and many of them have followed this example to rid themselves of income tax liability.
One important point, you do not deny that you are a citizen nor do you tell them that you are of the Posterity of the People of the Preamble, no, you demand that they present proof that you knowingly and intentionally willingly volunteered yourself into that subservient citizen status. The Thirteenth Amendment places the burden of proof on the entity making the claim. That is the IRS, NOT you!