Free news

FREE blog







Gun poll








14th Amdt

19th Amdt













Dear People,

Let me answer this Mr. Mark Ferran to put him (and others) in his/their place.

Please read my direct responses to his, written inbetween the lines:

At 04:05 PM 5/27/2003 -0400, you wrote:

In my experience, it is pointless to try to reason with pathological cases like "Aaron" here.   He denies that Congress hast he power to establish Post Offices and punish Mail Fraud outside of DC, he denies that Congress has the power to prohibit and to punish slavery (as prescribed in the 13th Amendment) outside of DC.


1.)  Never said this.  Never intimated this.  Never made any such statement whatsoever.  Never alluded to any such statement, nor placed it into the public domain; nor proffered the statement through any answer on this e-mail list, or any other e-mail list whatsoever.

Please respoind and remit the e-mail, the time, the date that I said any of these things you alone allege.

 He denies that the People have the power to Amend the Constitution to make the black freedmen full and equal citizens of the United States.


2.)  Never said this.  Never intimated this.  Never made any such statement whatsoever.  Never alluded to any such statement, nor placed it into the public domain; nor proffered the statement through any answer on this e-mail list, or any other e-mail list whatsoever.

Please respond and remit the e-mail, the time, the date that I said any of these things.

        FACT A.)  The 14th Amendment, created "a new type of citizen" with no Constitutional Rights or "freedom's" whatsoever.  It only gave this "citizen" "privileges or immunities," and nothing more.  THROUGH THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND ONLY THROUGH THE 14TH AMENDMENT THESE "NEW" "SPECIAL" CITIZENS OBTAINED "LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY."  (Their "privileges).
        FACT B.)  The 14th Amendment was never directed to BLACK "FREEDMAN" ONLY--AS IT MUST BE NOTED, THEY WERE BOTH, WHITE AND BLACK SLAVES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES DURING THIS TIME PERIOD OF WHICH THIS AMENDMENT WAS DIRECTED.  THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS DIRECTED AND APPERTAINED TO BOTH WHITE AND BLACK SLAVES.  [Non sui juris individuals].  So the 'learned' Mr. Ferran is grossly off base here and has zero comprehension of what he is speaking of.   (Ergo:  he is wrong.)


  In a world of perfect Justice, Aaron would be lured by Mail Fraud to a place where he will be enslaved by cruel masters with connections within the state-government (and therefore immune to the penal law of the state), long enough to value the fact that the Federal Marshals and FBI have the authority to enforce Federal Law and to rescue him from violators of Federal Law anywhere in the United States.


If anyone can understand this drug-induced psychobable, please e-mail me separately.   I won't even attempt to answer it here.   I have never said these things, nor made these claims, I would endeavor he produce these claims to me and to this list.


  He wants to believe he is in a superior Caste of citizens, when in reality his mentality places him in the category of criminal and Traitor against the People and their Constitution.


FACT:  There is a "superior caste" of Citizens within the United States.   This is a fact.  Again, I placed this on my first e-mail to Mr. Ferran, but strangely, HE DID NOT ANSWER ANY PALPABLE CITE AT LAW I PRESENTED TO HIM, BUT RATHER, WENT ON A PERSONAL INVECTIVE AGAINST ME.

TO REITERATE:   I do not say there is a "superior Caste" of Citizens within the United States--THE UNITED STATES SAYS THERE IS A SUPERIOR CASTE OF CITIZENS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  Please note (that which was not answered in my first e-mail)  Quoting from Title 42 U.S.C. (This is LAW):

Sec. 1982. - Property rights of citizens
"All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

It is a FACT, that the United States government and courts recognize there are two classes of citizens.  They are citizens of the United States who have "the same right" AS enjoyed by a second class of white citizens thereof.   I did not write this.  A racist government (called the United States) wrote this--and it is still on the books.

This "point of law" *wink* was never answered by the offending Mr. Ferran, nor was it addressed, or commented on by our 'erudite' and venal Mr. Ferran.


Anything you say directly to Aaron is, at best, a waste of time.  He is spoiled meat.


Well...even with spoil meat at some point you must how about stopping the personal invective--and how about ANSWERING PALPABLE ISSUES AT LAW, RATHER THAN DEROGATING THE CONVERSATION INTO NAME CALLING?    Ergo:  how about "addressing" me the "spoiled meat" [sic]?

You would think, that when a person cites legal case cites, that it would be in good form to answer those legal issues.

Clearly, Mr. Ferran is of a lower class, base intellect whom only wants to hear himself talk.  Those whom might have any countervailing opinions; even if backed with substantive law--are not to be heard in his world.   Law is not to be addressed.   All those things which do not conform to his political correctness--must be pounded down, those persons individually attacked by venal and base comments and derogatory name calling.  Any palpable legal argument, is to be ignored.

Mr. Ferran should make his feminist Masters proud.  I surmise he needs a pay-raise.


 You can't turn what he is into anything useful to anyone or anything other than to the maggots and the vultures that will prey on him and on his kind. 


He will corrupt any fresh meat that he comes into close contact with.


  He should be buried, for the sake of public health.

Non auditur perire volens.

Save your breath for public discussion ABOUT Aaron and his deviant kind.  Make an example out of him.

See above.  Ibid.

  Humiliate him.


  Destroy him, if necessary to protect others.


  Don't waste your time speaking TO him.  (Don't throw Pearls to Swine)


I will now address Mr. Roginsky below:


----- Original Message -----
From: Jacob Roginsky
To: Aaron Burr
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Aaron


The relevant part of Article I, Section 8 does not say what you appear to think it says.
The jurisdiction to which it refers is exclusive jurisdiction.   There you may not be given
a speeding ticket by a state police officer, for example.    Federal law always extended
to all of the US and its territories.


Wrong.  Most litigants find the error of Mr. Roginsky when they file any suit within Federal court and the Federal court throws their suit out on a Younger Abstention, and/or Rooker-Feldman Abstention where they say: "that is the state venue and jurisdiction" and "we the federal venue and jurisdiction dare not tread there, we cannot go!"  [paraphrased]  Let me continue this answer in the next erroneous proposition Mr. Roginsky iterates here.

Again, the constitution is are the powers it is vested with, AND NO OTHERS:

Now the Constitution has given Congress this lawful authority as long as it is used within its lawful sphere. This is granted by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8 at Clause (9), quote - "To constitute tribunals inferior to the [S]upreme [C]ourt." Which means they have the lawful authority to create their own courts.

Clause (10), Congress has the power, and I quote - "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, AND (to define and punish piracies and felonies) against the law of nations." This grants Congress the authority to enter into and participate in International affairs and controversies, which would include disputed international contracts. Continuing now in the Constitution and I quote at:

Clause (11), "To declare war, ... and make rules concerning captures on land and water."
Clause (14), "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."
Clause (15), "To provide for the calling forth of the militia [our National Guard] to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
Clause (16), "To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be "employed" in the service of the United States, reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officer and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Clause (17), "To exercise EXCLUSIVE legislation in all cases whatsoever, ..."
Clause (18), "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for the carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Are we reading from the same constitution?


  In fact, the Supremacy Clause mandates the supremacy
of federal law over state, territorial and other law where the federal law clashes with


4.)  It is a fact, that the state governments CREATED the Federal government.   The "union of several states" never relinquished their sovereignty to the feds.

5.)  The "idea" that a subordinate entity (called the United States) was created by a superior entity (called the Union of the Several States), cannot overstep its authority from the entity which created it.  This violates the maxim that an inferior cannot derogate greater powers to itself than it is vested with in its beginning.  We even saw this maxim applied upon every crowning of every king in western history excepting Napoleon himself (who crowned himself) [tryant].

        a.)  In early American history, the "union of several states" only gave limited powers to the Feds.    After a few years, the Feds came back to the states and (begged them) and said "this is unacceptable," we cannot make contracts with foreign governments, we cannot do our duties as a viable force, etc..  So--the states expanded the powers to the Federal government--but not where that government would subsume them or overstep its enumerated bounds.  That expansion was held in check by the constitution which created that government.


   The federal government was always able to send its agents to arrest on probable
cause of the commission of treason by a citizen of the United States the citizen without
asking the state and/or territorial government for permission,


Wrong.  Any treason charge will conform to the rules under extradition--and it is a fact, that the Federal Government will ask the state for entry into the state, as the Federal government only has lawful authority over 10 miles square within any state.   [Full faith and credit and comity concerns].

Now--it may be true; that the Feds are doing what you say today (in violation to their own law) HOWEVER--much of what the feds and state governments are doing is in complete contravention to law.  Try and get a Sheriff Officer to have a warrant for any misdemeanor arrest--and he will laugh at you.  His laws will state ad infinitum that he must have such warrant; and that upon request he is to immediately (upon an practicability) produce it--but trust me; he will insolently laugh at you, and he will NEVER produce it--and when you get him into court--he will say "I don't know," until he passes out from oxygen deprivation when you ask him if he took an oath of office, knows about the constitution, if he knows about the 4th Amendment, etc., etc., etc.   Suddenly, he will be deaf, dumb and blind.

You may be speaking of PROCEDURE--where I am speaking of LAW.  Procedure is not law.


 regardless of where in the
US the citizen is located.



NOW TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSITION AS TO THE 14TH AMENDMENT:  (Which again, was never answered).

ITEM:  Did the Federal Government have constitutional power to "create" a citizen?   I say no.  Apparently Mrrs. Roginsky and Ferran say "yes."

6.)  Marbury v. Madison 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is clear on this subject.  That court concisely stated that the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.  That it could not be exceeded by the government.  No separate department of government could supercede it.  The Executive, Legislature, nor Judiciary itself could supercede or overthrow its clear meaning at law.  The government, nor the people themselves could overthrow it--it was the "highest" law of the land and only could be amended by law.

        a.)  Those "amendments" only could conform to the meaning and intent of the original document.  You, for instance, could not have a 28th Amendment forming a Communist Government.
        b.)  The "constitution" DOES NOT GRANT the Federal government any power (for instance, the right to "create" a 14th Amendment citizen):

        "The constitution of this state is not to be considered as a grant of power, but rather as a restriction upon the powers of the Legislature, and it is competent for the legislature to exercise all the powers not forbidden by the constitution of the state, or delegated to the general government, or prohibited by the constitution of the United States."  People v. Coleman, 4 Cal. 46; People v. Bigler, 5 Cal. 23; Williams v. Thompson, Jan. T. 1856.
See also: 

"It is an axiom of political science, that the judicial power of every government must be commensurate with its legislative authority: it must be adequate to the protection, enforcement, and assertion of all the other powers of the government.

If it shall appear on the face of the act, that it is not passed for the purpose of carrying into effect an enumerated power, and that it is passed for some other purpose, the act would not be constitutional. "  Cohens v. Virginia, 4 Wheat. 264   (1821)  p. 325, 354.

The legislative power never held any authority to "create" a citizen.   Again, most people have zero comprehension of the evil intent subsumed by the 14th Amendment, and its hidden meanings of which I have a problem with--which does not lend itself to racism or a white separatist government--but overt fraud.  I will address this issue later on.

7.)  The 14th Amendment was declared ratified by Congress on July 28, 1868.    Yet, unbeknownst to many common citizens--there was a huge problem with it.    Indeed, it appears that the Federal government subordinated the southern governments in order to force, literally force its passage.  [There is even a contention that the southern states (most notably Virginia, which was one of the original 13 colonies--rebuked its passage), and the Amendment may in fact, not be legal--but that is another discussion].  It is clear, that from its inception--there was a big problem with this Amendment, of which most citizens, have no comprehension.

8.)  Knowing that the Federal government cannot assume powers not granted to it; and knowing that the Federal government was in fact, "created" by the union of several states and thereby, cannot have any power greater than that which created it; (reiteration)


There are 3 main problems with the 14th Amendment.  They are:

9.)  Where did this citizen of the United States get created???
        a.)  Joe Blow is born in New York, New York.  His birth Certificate says he was born there, in the state.  It follows by logic that he is a New York state citizen.  (This is incontrovertible).
        b.)  The United States, was never a party to that birth, as that act comes under NATURAL LAW (God given rights). 
        c.)  Joe Blow is now 33..and he is dragged into court whom now claims he is a "citizen of the United States."   Where did this citizen come from?  Where did Joe Blow KNOWINGLY  contract to this new status or citizenry?

"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state."   Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)

        d.)  Apparently this 14th Amendment citizen has deferred rights.  It does not have the FULL Constitutional rights as guaranteed under the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.  A 14th Amendment citizen, only obtains "privileges" squeezed through the 'window' of the 14th Amendment--nothing more.  There is a claim that this "citizen" is in fact, a fiction--an "artificial citizen" created out of the ether.  Where did the Federal government obtain this right to "create" a fiction for me??  Note the following admission from the Corpus Juris Secundum:

Patton v. Gilmer, 42 Ala. 548, 94 AmD 665 (Holding that a contract made by an artificial person is void if the consideration is illegal, or if the subject matter is against public policy; in this respect a corporation stands on the same ground as a natural person).

10.)   This 14th Amendment citizen has deferred rights, not equal in the breath and magnitude of an organic citizen of the posterity--why am I compelled to accept this 14th Amendment citizenry, over my superior state Citizenry?

        a.)  If a government gives me a privilege, it can take it away.  [Inalienable right vs. Unalienable].
        b.)  Do I have the right to declare my legal status as a state Citizen?
        c.)  Do I have the right to assert and claim all of my vested rights?
        d.)  Do I have to be forced to compromise my rights I claim as a vested state Citizen with GUARANTEED and       
        e.)  What did Benjamin Franklin mean after he forced the King of England in the Treaty of Peace, to sign it to
        "each and every individual American citizen?" Where he said coming off the boat:  "I have made you all kings?"
        Who is the superior over whom in this nation?

Under the 14th amendment this answer has been destroyed.  Note the following:


Section 4.  "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in supporting insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Well, I QUESTION THE 7 TRILLION DOLLAR PUBLIC DEBT--AND ALL CONTINUING DEBTS.  Yet, apparently, the 14th Amendment citizen, cannot "question" this debt.  Note that these "debts" government is enslaving us to--are growing exponentially--yet nobody speaks to them any longer.

Please note the further capriciousness of the 14th Amendment:

11.)   Go to any law library.  Go up to any lawbook written after the enactment of the 14th Amendment up to including any law reporter printed today.  Pick one of the books out of the hundreds of thousands this nation has written and throw that book up into the air, let it land on the ground randomly opened to any page.  Start reading that random case.  That case could be discussing two Construction Companies arguing surety rights or the case could discuss whether a woman has the right in selling her own hair or anything inbetween those legal questions and/or subjects--YET VIRTUALLY ALL THE CASES IN OUR LAW BOOKS WILL DISCUSS THE LEGAL QUESTION AT LAW IN LIGHT OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.   


Why is this amendment (of which few people or citizens fully understand its true import), including the incomparable Mr. Ferran, (*yawn*) so important to the Federal government?   Why is the 14th Amendment citizenship such a suborned legal question to every question of law?

Clearly, there is a hidden agenda with this 14th Amendment.  Mr. Ferran does not understand its full legal import and meaning (as he did not fully respond to the legal citations and concepts I iterated in my first e-mail in response to this question), nor does Mr. Roginsky understand--that the constitution in no way, shape or form--vests the United States with the powers of creating citizenship.


12.)  Mr. Ferran and Mr. Roginsky are correct.  The Federal government found authority within the Constitution to "create" a Federal 14th Amendment citizen.   It has that right.  That right is in the constitution:

        a.) It thereby follows that the Federal can create any form of citizen, not just a 14th type.
        b.)  Since the Federal government was created by the states, then; the states also have this power to create citizens--as the states created the federal government.
        c.)  The state thereby, not just at birth, but at procreation; are a party to the act of "creating life" (human beings-which are then citizens).
        d.)  If the state thereby has this right--it can create citizens at will.

13.)  Analysis and Deconstruction of Item 12 above.

        a.)  The state cannot create nor own any citizens.  The state in fact, is subordinate in our form of government to "we the people."  The citizen via the Revolutionary war, created the state, and we are its Master.  The states then collectively created the Federal Government in which the state(s) are its superior and master.  Both the Union of Several States along with the Federal government are INCORPORATED--that is; they are corporations, not human beings.
        b.)  Human beings can only create life (which then turn into citizens).  I can go out tomorrow and create another citizen.  [We can only hope.  Any females on this list 5' to 5'3", preferably brunette, and preferably mute; please contact me at]   The state--cannot, no matter how much it tries can "create" a citizen.   If I want 3 more children (citizens) to my family [see the above parenthasis]--I have the right to procreate and to bring those children in the world. [Ibid.]  In fact, I can go to Paraguay and make them Paraguayan citizens and not American citizens...and there is nothing the state can do about it.
        c.)  If the state needs 20,000 more citizens to build a bigger state capitol, or a longer bridge; it cannot "invent" nor "legislate" creation of those citizens.
        d.)  If I hate Boston Baked beans, and I refuse to have either me or my child live under "Bostonian" bean tyranny--I can go to a different state and have my child born under Oklahoma freedom as an Oklahomian...yet, Boston cannot conversely come to me and say: "No...we need to create another Bostonian citizen--we claim your child even though it was born in Oklahoma."  Again, neither the state nor feds have this power to "create" citizens..."we the people" by where we domicile "create" the citizen, and those "state citizens" control government--as we are its Masters, and those whom inhabit that government are our public servants, and nothing more.   [Trust me, I have gone throughout the English law and read the law of the parishes and how the parishes count their citizenry and enter them (and are responsible to them) back throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, so I know the basis of these laws.]
        e.)  If the state does not have the power to "create" citizenry (but only to record the birth of citizens that "we the people" VOLUNTARILY bring into such state)--then it follows, that the Federal government does not, (nor did not) have the "right" to "create" the 14th Amendment citizen.  (Not a freed black slave--but a freed slave).  THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING ELSE--EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL, AND EXTRA-JUDICIAL...and they did not have this LAWFUL right, they just "did it."   And that is what I am discussing here.   The fact, that the constitution did not vest the Federal government with the lawful power to create a 14th Amendment citizen.
        f.)  If the Feds have this right to "create" the 14th Amendment citizen out of the either--then where are the corresponding "state" 14th Amendment citizens written into their respective constitutions?  [Where are the states "new" and fictional citizens?]   THERE ARE NONE.

The idea that we all (as Mr. Ferran desires) just silently and obsequiously subordinate ourselves to this "new" 14th Amendment citizenry (of which nobody truly knows the full extent of its tyranny, nor its apparent "hidden agenda") does not comport with my ideas to law, nor a free or informed society.

I maintain my original premise of which I think I have defended here through both legal citation and empirical erudition--and stand ready to defend.



Aaron Burr wrote:
Dear Jacob,

It is very clear, that the constitution gives no authority for creating citizenship.  None.  Zero.  Nada.

Nothing can even be inferred to granting is not in the authority of the we must remember as by case cite, the CONSTITUTION IS TO BE A RESTRICTION ON THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT.

Under federal authority, the Feds can only enact laws via ART 1 � 8 over "Federal District and Other places" which are defined under said article clause 17. and 18.  (Not to exceed 10 miles square in any state).  Other powers stem from Art II, � 1 (President--but he has no authority to create a new class of citizenship), or Article IV � sections 1, 2 and 3 (controlling Federal Territory and property).

So, the equation is reducible, to the 14th Amendment--to "create" something the controlling document itself does not allow.  Clearly, we can see it cannot be done--and we see by the laws I have submitted and was CLEARLY shown by common understanding (as I also showed) that there were 3 classes of citizens--of which the 14th Amendment created the third class without authority.

If you do not have the courage to place the law as clearly elucidated to your listgroup--then; it will be endemic that you want only an "approved" discussion of law to be permitted, no matter if it is right or wrong.  Those whom promulgated this discussion PRIOR to my entry, I think I have shown, are clearly wrong--or conversely, this issue should at minimum be researched more before it is discarded--yet, I have a feeling your listgroup will not now know their error, because you will sequester the law I have provided, because it is not "politically correct."

I cannot make the citations I have submitted "any more" correct.  They are placed in the message exactly as cited with bibliography citations, author, publisher, page number and footnotes....I have not "misread" what is clearly apparent, nor do I misquote.  I think the Title 42 USC 1985 quote is most astonishing, as it too clearly delineates what I am saying.

I am not here to "inflame" passions.  People pretend to stand by the law, until the law is exposed, then they get mulct because it does not conform to their visceral beliefs.

If that is the case, then we are not discussing law on this list-server--we are honing beliefs, and those beliefs which go against the majority, are to be sequestered and hidden from view, so that "new mythology" can be sustained, even if it is not in accordance with the facts of the matter.

I have only promulgated the facts...nothing more.


In the Constitution, there are very few things it allows for law making abilities.
At 10:25 AM 5/26/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>  This is why this question is so important.  Is that Congress did not have this power---
>  as it ONLY had the power vested in it by the Constitution.  And "IF" the
>  Constitution did not have this power--then Congress cannot "create" the power
>  out of the ether. Congress ONLY has the closely scrutinized enumerated
>  authority that the Constitution gives it---and no more.


Please understand that before we can post a message that is likely to
inflame passions, we have to make sure that it contains correct information.
Please tell me why did Congress not have that power  (see above)?   What in the
Constitution limits that power?

Jacob Roginsky

Subject: Re: [AMOJ_MAIN] The Pretensions of Racist Paytriots and
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 01:58:06 -0700
From: Aaron Burr <>

Dear People,

I am not a rascist, nor am I any member of any Patryot group or other extreme organization.

However; my research directly rebuts this ongoing debate.

The first thing I ran into was from the California Constitutional Convention; where those convention members in 1848 clearly recognized that there were 3 status' of citizenry: 1.)  White  2.)  Black  and a "new" 3.)  Federal citizen.  Well, where did they get this understanding from?  See The Debates in the Convention of California, of the Formation of the State Constitution, in September and October of 1849, by J. Ross Brown, Washington, 1850; p. 141

Also note:
"Citizen of the United States as created under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution was specifically a "freed slave" (or their offspring) after the Civil War."  See: Cory v Carter, 48 Ind., 327, 349 (1847); Valkinburgh v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 47 (1872)  (Reference also:  The legal definition of individual is "United States Government employee" [5 USC 552(a)(2)]).  See also:  Senate Document 99-16, The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation,  p. 956, 957, Footnote 12, for details summarized here.   This document and subsequent revisions is given free to all elected and past senators, congressmen, and vice presidents, delegates, and resident commissioners upon timely request to the Government Printing Office.   The doctrine of selective incorporation is the dominant doctrine for incorporating portions of the Bill of Rights for application to citizens of the United States.  You may purchase a copy from the U.S. Government Printing Office for $70 to $80; STOCK # 052-071-00674-5 (later issues may have a different stock number)..

Then, again, our forefathers clearly discussed this and recognized the three different classes of citizens.  Why?  Why was this an open understanding back then; and "why" has that understanding changed?

Also note that this fact was well understood by our forefathers.  One Mr. Stemple, a California state Legislator citing from the California State Convention papers avows this fact:  "But that portion of our population will be immensely large if 'emancipated slaves' not free Negroes, not freemen, not emancipated slaves, directly from the slave states, are permitted to be introduced [into California]."  From:  The Debates in the Convention of California, of the Formation of the State Constitution, in September and October, 1849; p. 141.  Clearly, we see three classes of citizen discussed here: free Negroes and free White citizen, and 'something else' which was "emancipated slaves" (ergo: the Fourteenth Amendment citizen.   A 'new creature' created by Congress).  Yet, Congress never had, nor ever will have this power to Constitutionally 'create' such a citizen.

This is why this question is so important.  Is that Congress did not have this power---as it ONLY had the power vested in it by the Constitution.  And "IF" the Constitution did not have this power--then Congress cannot "create" the power out of the ether.  Congress ONLY has the closely scrutinized enumerated authority that the Constitution gives it---and no more.

What we see is a slow leakage of those restrictions against government.   And "IF" government can change the constitution--then; the government can change our free form of government into ANYTHING IT WANTS.

Your asseveration that "The Supreme Court" shot down Barbara Martin's suit hold's no water with me.  This is the same organization that has shot down bulletproof Habeas Corpus filings and has suspended that document---not to mention other high-crimes and treasons it has committed through open treason to the public.  So THAT argument isn't going to work.

We are left with three things in this discussion:

1.)  Clearly there is an "organic posterity" to this nation.  Those citizens of legacy which are of a status of the original posterity of this nation, which was white, anglo-saxon and English.  That is just a fact--every History book in America shows this.
2.)  There are (was) a slave class of people.  NOTE:  This class never was legally recognized as being SOLELY BLACK.  It contained all those individuals which were non sui juris.
3.)  Clearly, as Cory notes above, there was 'another' class of citizen enumerated (I say invented) out of the Constitution Amendment the Fourteenth.  Now--I also believe Title 42 USC � 1985

Finally, there are those on these groups whom somehow lend infallability to their discissions--as if they received the word of god and nobody else.  Beware of false prophets.  "Secret" law, has been promulgating throughout our "modern" court systems and it is an abomination what our current courts are doing against us:

Secret law is an abomination," wrote Professor Kenneth Davis in
Administrative Law Treatise 137 in 1970. This quote has been cited in
numerous federal cases involving freedom of information act (F.O.I.A.)
requests. Two of the cases, Cox v. United States Department of Justice, 576 F.2d 1302, 1309 (8th Cir. 1978) and Stokes v. Brennan, 476 F.2d 699, 701-02  (5th Cir. 1973) are just two examples where the courts argued that secret law is wrong and government agencies, which the Courts are, are to make their documents available for public inspection. It is crucial to public confidence in the courts that judges be seen as enforcing the law and obeying it themselves.U.S. v. Muniz, 49 F.3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 1995).

You don't have to believe me.   If you read the works of Bork, and Lawrence H. Tribe as well as a host of others are warning over and over and over again, that the current supreme court is just not omitting the law--but they are in direct violation and contravention to both the laws and our form of government.  Those persons are much more erudite and trained than anyone here to this discussion...yet they too know something is broke.

Then finally, we must look at the final conundrum to this argument, and this one cannot be explained away:

Sec. 1982. - Property rights of citizens

"All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property

Hope this helps.



At 02:45 PM 5/24/2003 -0400, you wrote:
The Pretensions of Racist Paytriots (and of those who say they are not "persons" as that term is used in the 14th Amendment).   A collection of recent essays and letters by Mark Ferran.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Ferran
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:09 AM;

To intelligent People:

If you are breathing, and reading this, you are a human "person" who has the right to "equal protection of the laws" of any state that you may enter, whether your reside their or not; you also have the right to hold your life, liberty and property under the protection of the laws.  That is, according to the express guarantees of the Law Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ratified in 1868).   See, "Law, A Revolutionary Idea For Peace" at

Even if you are a Prisoner, you are still a "person" with these rights, somewhat modified by the fact that you were legally deprived of some Liberty upon Conviction.  Even visiting or travelling aliens, (non-citizens) are entitled to claim, enjoy, and enforce these Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court explained, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, that:

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "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." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. ...  The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court."

A person (or a self-proclaimed non-person) who professes that he does not understand that the meaning of the familiar word "person" as used in the Constitution to includes all human beings, is presumably mentally defective, or mentally ill, unless some other explanation is provided.  There may be other indications of illness, such as an inability to form complete sentences, and an inability to Capitalize the first letter of the first word in each sentence.   Sometimes, the sheer incomprehensibility of their various contentions are an indication of illness.  On the other hand, some false prophets are simply Evil.  In the ancient word, they were often said to be possessed by Demons.   It is difficult to exercise demons from their human Host.

The Word "Person" has been in the United States Constitution and in the English Language for hundreds of years.   It is an ordinary word, and basically includes all breathing humans.  The word "person" is used throughout the Constitution and its Amendments to refer to human beings, and the word "person" generally includes citizens, and non-citizens.  See ,Text of Constitution available at

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

Obviously, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) did not create nor define the institution and status of a Citizen of the United States.  That Institution and status was created by the Original Constitution in 1789.

The word "person" includes "Citizens of the United States" including those humans who have been elected to hold office:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. ...  And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

"no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The word "person" includes anyone who lives and breaths on American Soil:

"No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

The word "person" as used in the US Constitution included "free persons" and also "other [non-free] persons:   "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

"A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."

To be precise, the word "person" as used in the Constitution included not only free citizens, but also people who where held as "slaves":   "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

The word "person" is also used in the same broad manner in the Amendments to the Constitution to refer to human beings:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fifth Amendment, a limitation upon the Acts of the Federal Government says:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ...; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Similarly, the Fourteenth Amendment, binding upon the States, says:

"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."

The Fourteenth Amendment declares which "persons" shall be deemed "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."  The persons who are deemed to be citizens, are "persons born or naturalized in the United States."   But, even persons who were neither born in the United States, nor naturalized, (and who are therefore not "citizens") are protected by the Law Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"No State shall ... 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."

This means, these guarantees are enforceable in the Federal Courts by any "person" regardless of where they were born, and without regard for whether they are citizens.

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "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." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. ...  The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court."

Even though the meaning of the Constitution is clear, there are some mischievous lawless people who seem to greatly enjoy promoting absurdities, on the internet.  Their motives for doing so are not always obvious.  Some of them seem to enjoy the personal attention that naturally comes with making outrageously false statements.  Some of them take money from people who are dumb enough to believe what they are saying.  Others who espouse such lying divinations may just be mentally ill, or even demon possessed.   Regardless of the cause of the disease manifested in a particular case, the appropriate remedy is generally to excommunicate such people (no one should unnecessarily communicate with them), and to deny them access to forums where serious business and only credible information should be discussed.   Forums that fail to maintain their integrity and which instead allow the diseased persons to repeatedly interject their delusions and deceit into the channels of communication risk alienating their intelligent members, and further risk subjecting their organizations to ridicule and contempt by the general public which tends to reflexively reject outrageous falsehoods and bold pretensions.

That is my view.

Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl

From: Mark Ferran
To: Royce Mitchell, Jr ;
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 2:51 AM
Subject: The Pretensions of Racist Paytriots

I think I know why Royce Mitchell, Jr omitted to provide a link to support his claims, particularly his boasts about "Barbara Martin" and her frivolous case, which was summarily dismissed by the lower Federal Courts, and then denied Certiorari by the Supreme Court without comment.

Martin is clearly a Racist Paytriot, who panders to the egos of those vulgar white racists who still think that their white European ancestry alone entitles them to regard themselves as first-class American citizens (The "Chosen Race" /Master Race) while deeming black "citizens" as members of a "Subject" Race.  Martin argues that "the African people never set up a government to secure their God given, Unalienable/Inalienable Rights. Therefore, they were prey to every other nation in the world.   ....   Now, lest anyone accuse my ancestors of being racists or bigots, it was not their responsibility to establish a government to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" for any other race of people, or any other race’s Posterity. And for the record, I am not a racist or a bigot because I am claiming my heritage. "   She pitches the standard Paytriot Myths (e.g., offering exemption from statutes regulating the use of motor-vehicles on public highways), and throws in a Racist Hook: "Motor Vehicle Operator Licenses, ZIP Codes, and other government documents ... are not mandatory to the "Posterity". "

Despite Royce's repeated failure to provide a link to support his vague contentions regarding the activities of a "Barbara Martin" who pursued an action in the Federal Courts, I located the website of "Barbara Ann (Norris) Martin" the self-proclaimed "De Jure Citizen"

Apparently, Martin is also a member of a "Church" that believes that all "Jews" are "ANTI-CHRIST JEWS"  (She/They argue that Jesus was NOT a Jew, and that he hated the Jews).

She begins her essay about with the disclaimer that "This article is not about bigotry or hatred."  Yet, her essay is a creative mixture of familar Paytriot Mythology that some people are above the Law, mixed with an anachronistic claim of Racial Superiorty of a Master Race over the "Subject Race."   She claims that "If you are white, and your ancestors were from Europe, you are probably a De Jure Citizen."  She notes that to be sure, you have to research your ancestry, as Royce has done.

To put Martin's article into context, it is important to realize that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) was intended and expressly written to abolish the holding of the Supreme Court which held that the descendants of Black Slaves could never be full-citizens of the United States, (but could only obtain mere "state-citizenship" and only at the pleasure of the People of each state.)

Martin argues (anachronistically) that "[Black] people could not (and still do not) qualify to be Sovereign/Citizens of the Republic because they were/are not members of the "Posterity" of the "One People" spoken of in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence." Martin's anachronistic thinking could very well have been lifted right out of the Decision of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which she does not mention at all.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the Supreme Court addressed the question, (decided under the Constitution before the Fourteenth Amendment) "Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution.   ....  We think they [people of African ancestry] are not [citizens], and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.  . . [T]he legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument."

"[W]hile [Chief Justice] Taney sympathized with Scott's dilemma, he was bound by law to find that Scott had no right to sue, as under the laws of the land he was in fact, not a citizen and did not have the rights afforded to a citizen. ...  Taney made it clear that it was up to the legislature to correct the wrong, not the court.  The legislature of that time did correct the problem by the proper path.   They amended the Constitution to include as citizens, all naturally born or naturalized persons regardless of race. The fourteenth amendment was ratified and became law. .....  The Dred Scott situation has been corrected, and rightfully so."

"The declaration contained in the [Fourteenth] amendment that citizens of the United
States shall be deemed citizens of the State wherein they reside is
merely a reiteration of the law as it existed before the amendment and
as it had been announced by Chief Justice Marshall in Gassies v.
Ballon(7) where it is said: "A citizen of the United States, residing
in any State of the Union, is a citizen of that State." The declaration
that all persons born in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States was the
announcement of a new law of Federal citizenship, carrying with it a new
law of State citizenship and altering, as it was intended to alter, the
rule of citizenship established by the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.(8) To that extent the amendment
worked a radical change.(9)"

The Citizenship Clause of Fourteenth Amendment corrected this iniquity between segments of the population and clearly declared that Every "person" who was "born" within any state or US Territory is deemed to be a member of the Posterity (a member of "the People" who is a "citizen of the United States") for whose benefit the Constitution of 1787's protections were written, and can become a citizen of any US state simply by residing there.

"The [Citizenship Clause of the] Fourteenth Amendment was adopted precisely to abrogate the disadvantages resulting from an inferior caste status imposed by law. Chief Justice Taney, in the historic decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. (19 How.) 393, 407 (1857), had described Negroes as having “for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” The Fourteenth Amendment was particularly intended to repudiate that view, and therefore reached beyond the Thirteenth Amendment (which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude) to elevate the Negro to full citizenship and complete equality before the law. It did not provide for “second-class citizenship” or prescribe “separate but equal” treatment; instead, it “made the rights and responsibilities, civil and criminal, of the two races exactly the same.” Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 318 (1880) (emphasis supplied).  The contemporaneous decisions of this Court fully reflected this understanding. In Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1880), this Court pointed out that the [Citizenship Clause of the] Fourteenth Amendment was framed and adopted to protect the colored people, who “had long been regarded as an inferior and subject race”, against State action designed “to perpetuate the distinctions that had before existed” (at p. 306)."

Ms. Martin's basic thesis is that still, even despite the Fourteenth Amendment, "there are two ‘classes’ of citizens in this country:"
  1. Preamble Citizen: persons born or naturalized within the meaning of the Organic Constitution and inhabiting one of the several Republics of the United States who enjoy full Citizenship of the Organic Constitution as Citizens of the Republic which they inhabit.
  2. Citizen ‘subject’: persons enfranchised by the 14th Amendment who are born or naturalized in the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and are residing therein as a United States citizen and are enjoying the privileges and immunities of ‘limited’ citizenship."

Martin's basic thesis that ""there are two ‘classes’ of citizens in this country" is directly contrary to the view universally accepted among civilized Americans, that:

"in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law."

The US Supreme Court has consistently held that “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality” [Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100 (1943)]; that “discriminations based on race alone are [*5] obviously irrelevant and invidious” [Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192, 203 (1944)]; and that “racial discrimination .... is at war with our basic concepts of a democratic society” [Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 130 (1940)].

Ms. Martin complains that Americans are "unaware of the ‘limited’ citizenship" of the Non-"De Jure Citizens."

Martin states:  "The intention of this article is to point out the apparent difference in the classes of citizenship and the difference in the courts in serving these classes."

She claims that " "We the People" (De Jure Citizens) and their Posterity, [include only] the same "one People" of the Declaration of Independence (1776)"

She Defines "De Jure Citizens" according to "blood and heritage "   (She points out that "Many of these "citizens" are by blood and heritage (De Jure) Citizens")

She argues that: "According to the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America (1787) the founders were "We the People". The historical fact is that "We the People" were the same "One People" of the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of Confederation, and the union they agreed to was perpetual. They were all free, white, and of the original stock of Europe. These were the same people who picked up their musket guns and fought and won ... Rights for themselves and their "Posterity"."

Thus, in order to be a "De Jure Citizen" (like Royce and Ms. Martin) one must be a member of the American Master Race, that is, "white, and of the original stock of Europe."

She claims that "DeJure Citizens" are the "Chosen Race."  She claims that only members of the "Chosen Race" possess "God-given Unalienable/Inalienable Rights," such as the Right to Operate the Federal and State Governments (and to Arbitrarily Rule the "Subject" Race).    Martin claims that the members of the "Subject" Race (presumably Blacks and others) are "‘subject’ to the jurisdiction" and Despotic Rule of the "Chosen Race."

[There is nothing particularly original about the wishful thinking of Ms.. Martin.   She could just have easily quoted the Decision in Dred Scott, or the passages of Adolf Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, wherein Hitler argues that the proper system for a modern society is a strict legal division between a "ruling race " and "the subject race" along racial blood-lines.  Mein Kampf, Chapter XI, titled, Race and People.

"The Rage of the South, and that of all its tropical confederates, equally thirsty for violence, is a burden the Constitutional oxen must have shoulders strong enough to bear.   ....  Today, racial purebloods are statistical freaks and geographic anomalies.  ‘Racial purity’ is more a function of self-delusion than of DNA.  ...  Fortunately, those who’ve tried this stunt in the past have allied the whole world, horrified, against them.  Fanatical bigots have often jumped off the deep end of psychosexual pathology, and killed off entire peoples, merely for carrying the “wrong blood” or different habits. ...  Many have tried this stunt in the past, and many more would love to try it today.  It’s a free world, after all.  Hitler and his wacko friends demonstrate this Prism pathology quite aptly."

Ms. Martin is apparently just one more American racist "wacko." She claims that ONLY the "Subject" Race is subject to "statutes," and to Courts which enforce Statutes, enacted by Congress pursuant to Article I of the Constitution.   Martin says that "De Jure Citizens are not subject [to such statutes or] courts, or bound by precedents of such courts." But, she notes that "most Citizens are led to believe these commercial statutes and codes also apply to them. "   She claims that "all Statutes or Laws passed by the State Legislature or the United States Congress that infringe on the Unalienable/Inalienable Rights of De Jure Citizens, are repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore are null and void as concerning De Jure Citizens [only]."

She repeatedly asserts that the members of the "Subject" Race "could not possibly be the Sovereign (De Jure Citizens) because the Sovereign (De Jure Citizens) were the ones who "ordained and established" the U.S. Constitution (in 1787), which created the government of the United States, which created the U.S Congress, which created the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments."   Despite the unmistakeable language of the Fourteenth Amendment, Martin denies that the People of the United States intended to Adopt the Black Freedmen as Full and Equal Citizens of the United States.

Martin makes the bizarre claim that "The U.S. Congress, via the 14th Amendment, created a "citizen/subject" status," which supposedly did not exist before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.   The Citizenship provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment gave ALL persons BORN (White and Black) before or after the Fourteenth Amendment, the assurance that they are born as full "citizens of the United States" and are therefore entitled to all the Birthrights of citizens, as full members of "We the People."     For information about the purposes of the Law Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, see

By "Posterity" Martin means only " the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest generation."   She therefore claims that "the freed (black) slaves ... could not qualify to be Sovereign/Citizens. These People could not qualify to be Sovereign/Citizens of the Republic because they were/are not members of the "Posterity" of the "One People" spoken of in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence."   She says that only "the Posterity held DeJure Citizenship as their birthright. They inherited the Citizenship status of their parents and ancestors."  She claims that Blacks (descended from slaves) cannot "exercise sovereign powers through elected representatives, or in person" because they are members of the "subject" race, not members of the Chosen Race.

Martin falsely asserts that: "The persons declared to be citizens, via the Fourteenth Amendment  ... could not possibly be the Sovereign (De Jure Citizens) because the Sovereign (De Jure Citizens) were the ones who "ordained and established" the U.S. Constitution (1787), which created the government of the United States ...."

Martin falsely asserts that "Fourteenth Amendment citizens created thereby, are outside of the scope of the original U.S. Constitution (1787) and it’s Bill of Rights (1791)

Martin falsely claims that "only Preamble People can exercise the offices as set forth in the Organic Constitution. Additionally, it seems that this same class (Preamble People) is the only class that may claim the protection of the first ten Amendments as written."

Martin falsely asserts that only "De Jure Citizens" can "Have direct personal access to a God inspired original Constitution and it’s restraints on government for the protection of life, liberty and property." and that 14th Amendment " Citizen-subjects" Second-class (Black) citizens only have "Have representative access to the first eight amendments as purviewed by the 14th Amendment."

Martin's claim is a total distortion of the words and settled meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments.

Martin claims that "De Jure Citizens can "waive" their Unalienable/Inalienable Rights" by obeying statutes enacted in accordance with the Constitution of the United States or by any state legislature.  Therefore, Martin's desciples, calling themselves "De Jure Citizens" are inherently LAWLESS PEOPLE who should be distrusted, and not expected to obey written Laws, particularly statutes.

Apparently, "Royce" is a deciple of this RACIST CULT, convinced of his own superiority, because he has taken the effort to prove his genetic connection to the Master Race that created the Constitution:  "I have proven with evidence admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence that I am a member of the Posterity, one for whom the Constitution of 1787's protections were written."

"The Racial Golden Rule opposes racial supremacism -- the control, domination or rule of one race by another. Racial supremacism violates reciprocity, prevents separation and independence, and conflicts with the vital right of the subject race to control over, and ownership of, its own life. Under racial supremacism one race is the master of another, or several others, with control over its existence or nonexistence. The subject race is reduced to the status of being a mere means to serve the ends and interests of the master race.  Racial supremacism can be open or disguised, accomplished or implemented by force or guile. Whatever its form, its effects are to deny the dominated race its vital rights and interests, the conditions of separation, independence and control over its own affairs and development that are part of its right to life. It is an aggressive, offensive, imperialist and chauvinist form of racial interference. The race it subjugates and dominates, whose independence it denies, is its victim."

In 1857, Mr. Sandford was able to prove this status of his own simply by proving he had white skin and was born a citizen of the United States.  On the other hand, Dred Scott, a black descended from slaves, was declared by the Supreme Court to be Not a member of the Posterity.
According to Royce-the-Racist, Martin Petitioned the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari, and the Petition for Cert. was "granted."   Royce, attempting to give a color of credibility to his lunatic contentions, said:
"Look this is not the first time this issue has gone to the S.Ct. Barbara Martin got cert for the same issue in the 90s. She made the mistake of not bringing suit for money and had the S.Ct. dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. If the issues were non-issues, as you have erroneously stated, the S.Ct. would have never granted Cert. Cert is discretionary, or didn't you even know that? What happened next was interesting. The case was ordered sealed for reasons of national security. Why is that, Mark, if they were non-issues?"

But, on the contreary, in the words of Ms. Martin herself, she admits that her Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was NOT GRANTED:

"I appealed to the Fifth Circuit, who also granted the government’s Motion to Dismiss for "Failure to State a Claim", and I petitioned the U.S.Supreme Court [for a] Writ of Certiorari.. My [Petition for a] Writ of Certiorari was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court Judges. However, they denied my [Petition for a] Writ. When I called the U.S. Supreme Court Clerk and asked for the reason for the denial of my [Petition for a] Writ, I was told "I could not get any information concerning their decision.... When my case was active in District Court, it was on their computers in the District Clerk's Office.. After I had talked to the U.S. Supreme Court Clerk, I went to the District Court Clerk's office, and tried to pull up my case on their computers, and it was no longer there."

The Supreme Court Denies the great majority of the Thousands Petitions it receives and almost never gives any explanation to anyone for why it refuses a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.   In the Martin case, the Petition was obviously denied because it had no merit, and her demand for "an Order acknowledging my status of Citizenship as De Jure" was not supported by the Law.

Royce and his ilk have sunken below the degraded mentality of typical victims or perpetrators of Paytriot Mythology, into the bowels of Racist Patriot Mythology.
Royce is nothing more than a pathetic Racist, a lawless person, a functional illiterate, and a brazen liar.   The reason he failed to provide links to support any of his statements, is that his statements are completely untrue.

Rather than dis-courage these creatures, perhaps we should instead all encourage them to Practice what they Preach.  That is, encourage them to OVERTLY violate and disregard ALL the State and Federal statutes which they preach do not "apply" to them as members of the Master Race.   Let the Constituted Authorities then put them to the Sword, and we will be Rid of them and others will be spared the corrupting influence of the products of their diseased minds.

Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl

------Related Comments ----
Message: 12
   Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:29:42 -0500
   From: "Ed" <>
Subject: The Race issue in American Law - Re: The Pretensions of Racist Paytriots

"De Jure" has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship. It is absurd to put them together as use it as a Title of Nobility. This is, by our Constitution, strictly prohibited. Skin color does NOT establish one as a Noble.

With these words in the Declaration the First Law for these United States on the American Continent was established:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that ALL Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness---"

At the time this represented a revolution in human thought. They were not the first to propose this philosophy. Many others Philosophers and Prophets, including Socrates and, certainly not least among them, Jesus, believed to be the Christ by the Christians, is believed to have said, in different words, the same. However; at that time in history, 1776, It was similar to saying to the world that almost all, if not all, other nations then in existence had been wrong in their belief the Sun revolved around the Earth. The dominate belief of the day was that Kings, and the Nobles they gave title too, had the "divine right of Kings" to Rule. This LAW suggested that each individual Human Person had the Right to Rule his or her own life and pursue happiness without interference, or dictates, from any King or Noble. Thus began a revolution. It sparked a revolution for the entire world. These men were well ahead of their time and they knew it. They knew it would take a long time to bring into actual practice the implementation of this Law. They knew that Socrates, Jesus, and many, many, many others had given their life for this ideal.

The revolution is still being fought today. Counter-revolutionaries have refused to accept this Law. Thus we have seen an extremely violent civil war in this Nation and many, many battles of varying intensity. Some other, less violent Battles, were; The battle of the labor movement of the early part of the last century, The Woman's suffrage movement for the right to vote, The progressive movement of the New Deal era of the 1930's, and the civil rights movement under the leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King for full equality for those of different skin pigmentation. Dr. King led to freedom people that were, first believed by many, prior to the civil war, to be a different species; and then, believed to be a different race. Recent revelations of the Law of Nature have revealed that no member of Humanity is a different species or a different race. All of us came from the same origin in Africa.
What is revealed by this history is that we, the Revolutionaries, are winning. What these men started has now become a universally accepted International Law. This universal acceptance was first revealed in the Nuremburg trials that followed the Great War of the middle of the last century that we, in the United States, know as World War II. It has since been codified in a document titled the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This document did not need to be ratified by our government for the United States as our own First Law inspired it. However, it has been.

Mistaken Certainties about Race:

You and I must be careful about the presumptions you make about Nature. Throughout the history of the existence of Humanity many presumptions, believed to be certainties of fact, have persisted for long, long periods of time. When the truth of Reality was revealed there was much resistance from humans. The resistance was led by those with power whose position of dominance over their fellow humans was threatened by the change in the beliefs of the masses revealed by the new knowledge. Those that had become comfortable in their position as the ones dominated, enslaved by their own beliefs, or fearful of challenging the beliefs imposed upon them, aided the resistance. Acceptance took time and often resulted in many deaths before full acknowledgment of the fact revealed, the law of nature, was accepted for the truth that it was and remains to be.

The best example of this is the long held belief that the sun revolved around the Earth. First one, and then others, discovered the truth was the Earth revolved around the Sun. It took centuries for the truth to gain general acceptance as fact. The Law of Nature was contrary to what the Law of the Church and the Law of the State had told the masses of humanity, then living, to believe. Threatened by this embarrassing revelation those in positions of power did everything they could, including torture and the imposition of the death penalty, including the crucifixion, upon those that shared the truth with others.

Thus; Our brothers and sisters with different levels of pigmentation in their skin have been forced to engage in a long struggle to secure in practice what they, too, were acknowledged to have, as a self-evident truth, in the Declaration of Independence.

The Judaic Torah, the Old Testament to the Christians in their Bible, says Humans came from the Garden of Eden, which has been believed to be located in current day Iraq where Abraham lived. We now know this is because that is where it is believed Humans first began to develop the written language. Archeology and Anthropologist have now proven the people that lived in the Garden of Eden first appeared in Africa. Barbara Martin is a descendant of those with skin that was very Black in color.

Seems Jesus, Thomas Jefferson and the others who signed the Declaration of Independence, were correct in making no distinction in the DOI, or in the Constitution, on skin color for inclusion as a member of the posterity. Of course, if she wants to split hairs, we could say the Constitution provided absolutely NO rights, or protection of the law, for those of the female sex. Hmmm. Sorry Barbara - Seems you were not born with ANY blessings.

Ed Join our Experiment in OpenLaw

----- Original Message -----
From: Royce Mitchell, Jr
To: Mark Ferran ; ;
Cc: ;
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: The Pretensions of Alleged Non-Persons
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Ferran
To: Royce Mitchell, Jr ; ;
Cc: ;
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: The Pretensions of Alleged Non-Persons
Once again, you have an opportunity to make a definite statement, and to attempt to support it with links or citations to "cases", but you don't bother to do so.
You repeatedly mention "cases" but you do not quote any, or provide citations to them, nor do you provide links to them.   You claim you are above and beyond the Jurisdiction of Congress to punish those who violate the 13th Amendment.
Look into your old emails from last week. I have already done this once. If you are too lazy to click your mouse on the email then I am certainly not going to waste one more minute on you Mark.  Your whole point is not to understand something but to deliberately obfuscate the facts.
Barbara Martin carried this very issue to the Supreme Court. She was not ordered to have a psychiatric evaluation. One other odd thing happened, though; she was removed from the IRS for the purposes of being required to file and pay taxes. You did not answer as to why, if this is a non-issue, her case was sealed by the S.Ct. for matters of national security.
So, unless you have something concrete to say, something that clearly shows that the "person" issue is other than I say, get a life, get on with whatever it is that you do and let me be about mine. Quit bringing up the same garbage email after email when none a word of it refutes what I posted last week.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Ferran
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 4:03 PM
Subject: 14th Amendment Secures Rights
 Mike is right.  Royce is ignorant.  The Fourteenth Amendment only "grants" the right of citizenship.   The Fourteenth Amendment "protects" and "secures" rights (Life, Liberty, Property, and Equal Protection) from invasion by the stats which otherwise could not be enforced by the Federal Courts.  "no rights were established, given, or taken away whatsoever besides citizenship.  Only protected!!!!"   The Fourteenth Amendment "secured" the "rights of white citizens" to the equal protection of the laws as much as it secured the rights of chinamen to the equal protection of the laws.  That is, at least until many people became so uneducated that they could no longer read and understand the plain words of that Amendment.
There are many uneducated people who cannot comprehend that rights can exist but they are not necessarily "protected" and "secured" by the Federal Courts until those Courts were given the Constitutional Authority to enforce them (against invasion by the states).   Their lack of education extends so far as to lead them to believe absolutely absurd contentions, such as the idea that the word "person" does not include all humans in the territory in question.
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Mark Ferran
      > > To:
      > > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:45 PM
      > > Subject: [CCCC-USA] RE: Re: Settling the matter ...
      > >
      > > There is no human being on Earth who is not a "person" within the
      > meaning of that term in the Law Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
      > Congress' laws are territorial, and can protect only people within
      > the United States, including its territories (such as Puerto Rico,
      > Guam, DC).  Congress is granted the power to protect and
      to "enforce"
      > the right of every "person" within the jurisidiction of any State or
      > territory to enjoy the "equal protection of the laws" thereof.  That
      > includes all persons, including alains, whether they "reside" there
      > or even if they are just visiting or passing through.  The
      Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce the right of every
      > person to hold his life, liberty and property under the protection
      of the Law of the States.
----- Original Message -----
From: rmarlett
To: ; Mark Ferran ; ;
Cc: ; ; ; jail4judges ;
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: [lawyerdude] Re: [ed44] Re: The Alleged Non-Person Frank Taucher's Pretensions
Mark has, and for good reason, set out to dispell some of the myths that are constantly destroying the Patriot Movement and it's chances of accomplishing anything.  He has half the dang alphabet behind his name as testimony to the fact that he knows whereof he speaks. His approach to these topics and that of others attempting the same thing may be different, and it may very well be because he is either overqualified to discuss issues of law with those of us who haven't been to law school, or it may be because he realizes just how much damage has been done to our nation by myths such as the one about denouncing citizenship.
    For the record, if Mark jumps down someones throat to dispell the myth in front of countless people, then so be it. I'd hope that many would learn, even if the one were offended.  I would hope that even the one sternly counseled would also learn...   For the good of the entire Patriot movement, however - I'd sooner see one, or even several of those spreading the myths become offended and leave than see their damaging myths spread on to countless others.
Robert Marlett, CEO
Freedom's Cry Foundation


jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition


Hit Counter


Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party