Patriot Mythology - Part I
State Nationals
WARNING! Read carefully. Changing your status to State National or American State National may NOT provide the protection from government you have been told.
There is no question that status is an important concept in law. As you will see below, the status of a "State National" or "American State National" will NOT provide you with immunity from prosecution by government.
Without further ado, let's explore some statutes, definitions and case law to find out if being a State National is your ticket to regaining your lost freedom.
Let's start with the definition of "national" in the United States Code at 8 U.S.C. 1101 (21),
8 U.S.C. 1101 (21). The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
I'm not going into the legal concept of person here because the Informer did an excellent job in his article titled "Person" published back in the 1990s. Yes folks, the Informer was that far ahead of us all. If you haven't read Person, I recommend reading it at least 10 times in different sittings to let it all sink in.
Now let's look at the definition of allegiance because it seems that many people don't understand exactly what it means and how it binds them.
ALLEGIANCE. Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives. U. S. v. Kuhn, D.C.N.Y., 49 F.Supp. 407, 414. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.
ALLEGIANCE, n. The tie or obligation of a SUBJECT to his Prince or government; the duty of fidelity to a king, government or state. Every native or citizen owes allegiance to the government under which he is born. This is called natural or implied allegiance, which arises from the connection of a person with the society in which he is born, and his duty to be a faithful subject, independent of any express promise. Express allegiance, is that obligation which proceeds from an express promise, or oath of fidelity.
Local or temporary allegiance is due from an alien to the government or state in which he resides. Blackstone. Webster's 1828 Dictionary. [Emphasis added.]
I'm going to interrupt here to point out a serious problem with Anna von Reitz's teachings. In a conversation with a state assembly member, I was told Anna teaches that a citizen is one who owes allegiance and obligation. A national has a loyalty/vested interest to their land, but NO obligation to any government other than to uphold the public law and live peaceably. After reading the above definitions of allegiance, I hope it is clear to you that Anna's statement about nationals is not supported by the definitions or common sense. Ask yourself, does the definition of allegiance convey any concept of an obligation or obedience to land, or is it specifically focused on a relationship to government?
Let's move on...
SUBJECT, n. 1. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. The natives of the United States, and naturalized foreigners, are subjects of the federal government. Men in free governments, are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects, they are bound to obey the laws.
The subject must obey the prince, because God commands it, and human laws require it. Swift. Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
I hope you’re starting to understand that a "national" is the subject of a state (government) and is thus subservient to it.
Being a national does not provide you with diplomatic immunity as the guru's tell you. Instead, it expressly puts you under the jurisdiction of the state. In the best case, you may escape federal jurisdiction with the argument they propose, but then you will be left answering to state laws.
Some may argue this is a move in the right direction, but I see it as a lateral move. By calling yourself a State National, you just confirmed to an officer or judge that they are correct in applying the state's statues to you because you owe obedience to its laws by being one of its nationals. Once jurisdiction has been obtained by the court, which you just agreed to by calling or declaring yourself their national, you are now guilty until you can prove your innocence.
Here's some proof from the courts that nationals come under their jurisdiction which support my statements above. Just think, if a country has jurisdiction over actions of its nationals while abroad, what would make you think that they wouldn't have jurisdiction over their nationals at home?
"Extraterritorial jurisdiction is also proper under the nationality theory, which permits a country to apply its statutes to extraterritorial acts of its own nationals." US v. Hill, 279 F. 3d 731 (2002)
"International law permits a country to apply its statutes to extraterritorial acts of its nationals. (Citations omitted.) In this case counsel conceded at oral argument that Thomas is an American national. We, therefore, conclude that section 2251(a) applies to the acts on which Thomas' conviction for violating this section was based, whether or not Thomas committed those acts in the United States." US v. Thomas, 893 F. 2d 1066 (1990)
In this last case, you can see that calling oneself an "American national" was all that was needed for the court to exercise jurisdiction. Do you really think stating that you are an "American State National" will in some way have any different result?
Wrapping Up
The next time you see someone talking about submitting paperwork to change their status to an American State National, State National or ASN, send them a link to this article and quiz them on their comprehension.
As for me, I will never claim to be a National.
1. The Informer didn't have a passport and didn't want one. The Informer’s approach therefore won’t solve the problem of commerce or travel for most people, so it will never get any traction.
2. Nevertheless, the Whiting Article regarding jurisdiction over aliens and citizens (http://archive.org/details/warpowersunderc03whitmg, p 322) that started this discussion still has huge holes surrounding the CIVIL statutory status of citizen as well. Its voluntary and you don’t have to accept it. That’s the main implication of the First Amendment, in fact. If you don’t consent to the status, under the common law you are a national and not a CIVIL STATUTORY “subject”. You have this choice because all citizens are nationals and a citizen is someone who consents. An act of birth is not an act of consent, and birth or naturalization both produce national or nationality status, not STATUTORY CIVIL “citizen” status. All just CIVIL powers of government derived ONLY from consent.
3. The Whiting article doesn’t address this aspect, probably deliberately, because they don’t want to spill the beans on this. It uses the word “law”, but anything that produces a CIVIL obligation requires consent in some form or it simply doesn’t satisfy the legal definition of “law”. See:
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsLaw.pdf
4. An obligation and the corresponding right it gives rise to in law is “property”. Any attempt to take property CIVILLY without compensation is THEFT.
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidGovernmentObligations.pdf
A failure to respect these principles literally means that we are ALL slaves and that human trafficking and slavery, which is an INTERNATIONAL crime, is OK.
So, the Informer is propagating "Patriot Mythology" on the subject of citizen status being mandatory or in the obligations attached to the CIVIL STATUTORY status of "citizen" being mandatory.
To summarize the argument about extraterritorial CIVIL (not criminal or common law) jurisdiction against nationals:
1. Civil statutory jurisdiction is based on domicile. Federal rule of civil procedure 17.
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
2. Domicile is voluntary. Therefore civil statutory jurisdiction is voluntary.
3. Your domicile doesn’t have to be where you live. District of Columbia v. Murphy.
4. A court faced with joining you to a civil class action while domiciled abroad has to dismiss you because you are stateless
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/StatelessPerson.htm
5. Domicile is a civil statutory protection franchise, and you have a right not to receive a benefit or the civil statutory obligations that go with the benefit.
6. You can’t have a civil status to which civil statutory obligations attach extraterritorially without your consent. Otherwise its human trafficking and slavery.
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/RightToDeclStatus.pdf
7. If you damage someone extraterritorially, the common law is sufficient remedy. Statutory civil law is unnecessary.
8. Common law and criminal law can operate extraterritorially without your consent, REGARDLESS of whether you are a national or not.
9. All citizens are also nationals, according to the department of state. If you say you are not a national, the only other thing you can be is a STATUTORY CIVIL citizen subject extraterritorially to the statutory civil law.
10. All citizens are volunteers. You can’t be one WITHOUT consenting. Its a privilege that comes with obligations. So by claiming THAT status rather than national, you just screwed yourself because you only have two choices on a passport application.
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/citizen.htm
11. You can’t get a passport as an alien. An alien is someone who is neither a citizen nor a national. You can’t be a citizen without also being a national. But you can be a national without being a citizen if you don’t consent to be a citizen. This is because citizen is a volunteer. IF the informer says he doesn’t want to be a national, then he can’t be a citizen EITHER and won’t be eligible for a passport. So the Informer’s position is completely untenable and impractical on the national issue.