Expatriation Examined/Civil War Defined

Expatriation Examined

www.pacinlaw.org... The full article.

For some reason people have been having trouble opening links or watching videos found throughout the threads on ATS. For that reason and the importance of the information within I will post it almost in its entirety. Minus all the footnotes and other links within. I do so with full permission from the author himself.

Intro: There are some patriots out there that say that Expatriation is the wrong thing to do in freeing oneself from the system. We beg to differ- herein are some legal authorities:

Expatriation and the legal Entailments: First definition of expatriation,

Expatriation. A voluntary change of Allegiance from one country to another, effecting an absolute termination of all civil and political rights as of the date of such act.
3 am j2d Aliens 120.

Above definition is from Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 3rd edition. Note that the definition refers to American Juris Prudence in regard to ALIENS. Now, below is the general definition of an alien that is found in a current edition of American Heritage Dictionary:

Alien. Owing political allegiance to another country or government.

Americans have never owed political fidelity to the federal government, because it is not nor ever was a true national government. Moreover, the definition of alien states one owes political allegiance to a government. With those stated facts established:

Question: Are your political rights derived from the federal government or the Federal Constitution? Answer: NO.

Now to evidence the fact that the government entitled the federal government ie the United States----is not a bona fide national government----or in other words---that it does not represent a nation, per se. See this definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition:

National Government. A national government is a government of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the social compact, and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact.

In further evidence that the United States is not actually a country or a nation, the Articles of Confederation---which were overwritten by the United States Constitution--- are essentially a compact by the several states of the union. Now, in retrospect, take look at this definition which pertains to The War Between the States, which is wrongly referred to as the Civil War:

Rebels. A term loosely but incorrectly applied to the Confederate Forces engaged in the Civil War. 30 am J Rev ed insurr 2.

Why were the Confederates not considered rebels?... There was no breach of allegiance to their state governments or nations, nor did they commit treason against the American Union to a foreign power. They had a lawful war pursuant to the doctrines of international law. As a matter of law it was not even a civil war---it was an international war.

Now you may be saying to yourself: Well, if one expatriates, he would have to leave the United States or what most people think of as is the country. For some odd reason this is the trend of thought. However as we have stated herein above the United States is NOT a country under principles of international law; the United States is a federation of countries. It is deemed a country internally under the color---or rather---fraud of the 14th Amendment and some colorful applications of international law. Under international law your state is your lawful country and nation. See the definition from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 as proof:

Country. By country is meant the STATE of which one is a member.

Now this question, how can you owe allegiance to all states if they are all separate countries?

The above was referenced to lay the groundwork for you to understand the following:

Firstly, the United States is an incorporation or federation of countries, it is not a country. So the question is, how can one have a bona fide nationality of a federation or corporation?

Secondly, the devious 14th Amendment establishes a so-called dual citizenship. And because the 14th established a so-called dual citizenship---and as it would violate due process of law after the installment of the amendment---the term noted as citizen of the United States can ONLY MEAN a United States citizen or federal citizen when used in authorities of law. Accordingly, in view of such matters, we must ask these two questions:

1) Can a person participate in elections without being a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment? Answer: NO. Then he does not have political rights unless he is claiming to be a citizen of the U.S.---does he? And, if one were to participate, would he not be deemed a citizen of the U.S? Answer: YES.

2) Because the (new) federal government has set-up a (new) system of law which is grounded in Roman Civil Law under the 14th that establishes rights that are repugnant to the common law, by expatriation would one not be giving-up these rights, e.g. title 42 suits? Answer: YES.

Now look at the definition of expatriation again to see if the foregoing facts fit:

Expatriation. A voluntary change of allegiance from one country to another, effecting an absolute termination of all civil and political rights as of the date such act.

So are you still saying that expatriation is not the proper, legal way to remove yourself from the government system and its 14th Amendment bondage? Are you saying to yourself the 14 Amendment is a fraud and you do not have to expatriate? Well, these questions are asked...And remember ignorance of the law is no excuse is a maxim of law:

1) Have you signed any government form or participated in any activity that states you must be a citizens of the U.S. e.g voting in any or all state or federal elections or sign any Social Security or other benefit/taxation form that requires you to be a U.S citizen?

2) Because only U.S citizens can vote, and under established international doctrines of law a child carries the nationality of his father, did your father participate in any U.S. elections in his lifetime?

Now we must ask: After a 140+ years of the 14th Amendment system being in place, do you really think there is not a presumption or established fact that you are regarded as a citizen and national of the U.S. by government agencies and judges? Have you heard of a thing called legal fictions? Have you ever heard that possession is nine tenths of the law? Who possesses the territories known as the several states? The NEW citizens of the U.S, or the lawful citizens that existed prior the amendment? So, whose law system rules then?

And in closing, below is the legal definition of ALIEN from a legal source that is not common to the legal profession, but many of the judges in America use, Ballentine's Law Dictionary:

Alien, one who, having been a citizen of the United States, has expatriated himself. 3rd edition.

Now look at this definition established by the insurgent U.S Congress:

Title 8 USC 1101 (a)(3). The term ALIEN means any person NOT a citizen or national of the United States.

Any questions?

Just to add a little more to your AWESOME post

the civil war wasn't really a civil war.. it was a war between the states... It was about state rights more so than slavery in fact a lot of the southern states got rid of slavery before the war even started... HELL Lincoln had slaves...

but history is written by the victors... and somehow the South got turned into slack jawed slave owners, instead of people who wanted state rights

great post!

If it was about states rights and not slavery then surely you can list all of those rights the states were clamoring about. In fact, I challenge you to do so without resorting to posting links.

You see, "states rights without slavery" is simply southern revisionism. They were the aggressors in this war and they just can't accept the fact that they lost fair and square.

And you want to know the whole kicker?

If they hadn't fired on Fort Sumter, there very well could've been a peaceful resolution and the whole thing would never had happened and they could've seceded in a peaceful manner.

You see, one of those states rights they'll never mention is that they didn't want their slaves to be freed in a free state.And in the current southern revisionism of the Civil War, they will never mention that aspect of their claim of "it was about states rights".

Because if they mention it, then that means the Civil War WAS ABOUT SLAVERY AFTER ALL.

And it's just one more way they'll lose.

Which is why they are revising the history. Because they just can't stand the fact that they were wrong.

I appreciate the fact and well expected many post on the Civil War, however my threads deal with law not history books BS assumptions that can not be proven way or another. Many people are confused about the war and the purpose of the war. To clear a few things up or at least try to will explain a couple of not so well known facts.

First the war had nothing to do with slavery at all, that was an after thought.
The reason for the war was about succession from the Union, that would not have been a problem except for the simple fact they the South want to include with it the lands already promise and given to the Federal government. In other words they wanted their cake and eat it too, that was unlawful unmoral and just simply wrong.

To this day succession is a lawful right of the States, but they have to follow the laws laid down to do so and can NOT take/claim the land sections within the State given to the federal government as that would be a breach in contract. All States had to give over ex-amount of acres depending on size and population at the time of joining the Union.
That is the common understanding but to me does not hold water I think as the federal government worked its way West they just got greedier.
Now some states/territories were just bought out right as in the Louisiana purchase all of which belongs to the federal government and not the individual areas. This again is conjecture on my part since never verified the laws pertaining to that fact.

If you look at the land maps marking the land given you will notice that the farther West on goes the more land had to be given up to join the Union. Because this land can not be used by the State to say build a development on they have narrowed their means to create or have a larger tax base ie income from the populace. The education map goes hand in hand with the land map the further West you go the Red areas on the map shows the worst education for the general population. The only Red area on this map in the East happens to be Florida since Florida and most of its land is secured by treaty for the native population there of.

Fort Sumter was a big issue because it was built on land already allocated to the Union and the South want the fort for themselves, this in my educated opinion was the real issue and start of the wrongfully named Civil War.

For those stuck on slavery, one of the first slave owners in the Union was a black man so put your predigests aside study law and lean as much fact not hype as you can. There is a much deeper issue that comes into play at this time in our history and yes it has to do with Lincoln and proclamation 100 but will save that for another time.

History of the United States that is not well known

Our history began with the Articles of Confederation, November 15, 1777
After independence from Great Britain was declared on July 2, 1776 the United Colonies needed to form a new Confederation to govern and conduct the war against England. The Continental Congress, after painstaking debate, passed the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America on November 15, 1777. Unlike the Constitution of 1787 this confederation charter required the ratification of all 13 states before it would become the first Constitution of the United States of America.

It was Maryland who held out ratifying the Articles of Confederation until 1781 due to border disputes with neighboring states. On March 1, 1781 with this 13th state ratification the Continental Congress ceased to exist and The United States in Congress Assembled was place at the head of each page of the Official Journal of Congress. The New United States in Congress Assembled Journal reported on March 1, 1781:

The ratification of the Articles of Confederation being yesterday completed by the accession of the State of Maryland: The United States met in Congress, when the following members appeared: His Excellency Samuel Huntington, delegate for Connecticut, President....

Mr. Samuel Huntington served as President of the Continental Congress from 1779 to 1781, which was well beyond the one year term limitation now mandated by the ratified Articles of Confederation. Despite this Huntington was recognized as President of the United States in Congress Assembled during the ratification celebration of March 1781 and presided over the new Government until the election of President Thomas McKean.

Contrary to popular belief, Samuel Huntington actually became the first President of the United States on that fateful day. There were Nine more US Presidents who served under the Articles before George Washington's inauguration in 1789 making him the eleventh.


So we must ask as ourselves, WHY?

Why do we celebrate July 4th and not the Second as the birth of our Union?
Why our we taught that George Washington was the first President, when in fact he was the Eleventh?
And what other miss teachings have been sold to the American people?

These are the kind of truths I teach my kids so they don't fall victim to the brainwashing lies of the defacto.
So much indoctrination to get beyond and will do my best to use the law when ever possible to explain the facts and not the hype. Verbiage is the key and we will learn a lot of new things together.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Your reply shows us just how good of a rewrite of history the victors have done. The battle for state's rights has been ongoing since the founding of the nations. Now, I'm not claiming that slavery wasn't an issue in "The war between the state", because I wasn't there, and can't be sure what transpired in congress that caused the southern states representatives to walk out. But, I'd be willing to bet, that wasn't the only issue being fought over, it's just the only issue we're ever given as a reason in history.

Looks like the OP beat me to it, and summed it up much better.

Sorry for my long winded responses but as you can see one thing ties into another and so on, so I try to do my best to cover all angels so please take the time to read carefully any comments and links they usually will answer most questions for you, and may add even more questions that you would like to ask. As always do my best to use law language so be careful not to confuse the common understanding of a given word. As words in law have very different meanings then the ones we have been taught in school.

Thank you.

Also to cover in more detail on why the Southern States walked out of Congress will be covered as well at a later time. Many pdfs will lead you into another and that topic is covered in one of them as well. We can have honest and open minded debates on many things if we work together and not let distractions from trolls take us off focus. The focus is law and government that has been kept from us all.

Thank you all again.

Thank you for this thread! Your ability to present this topic in an easy to understand format is refreshing and most welcome! SNF
I am fascinated with the concept of expatriation, but so much of the information available is bogged down with legalese, one needs to be an attorney to fully understand it. Also, much of the info out there is misleading at best, and false in many cases.
I have attempted to find answers about the more mundane aspects of expatriation, such as how it would affect one's property ownership, employ-ability, etc...
I don't want to send this thread off in the wrong direction,so feel free to U2U me.
Peace

reply to post by Elostone


No worries you are asking the right questions as many others will have similar concerns.
Again simple answers will be hard so instead I will get the proper links to help further your studies.

First rule never higher an attorney they work for the system and have its best interest in mind not the clients. And by the end of your studies you will understand more law then most attorney's since their primary focus is on procedures and case law.

Second rule never study case law, each case though similar in nature no two are exactly alike and beside think if you studied a case were the judge was corrupt that cases verdict will not be the same in a different court would it? Its called bad case law and there is a ton of it on the books. The exception to this rule would be Supreme Court cases and decisions.

Legalese is yes a big issue too many people claiming they have the answer using part law part whimsical ideas that have no standing so you must learn to do your homework.
To help with that I will post a couple of links to the Law Dictionary I use most it is a great habit to get into looking things up for yourself and never take anyone's word mine included. These are free and easiest to understand since it is one of the oldest, the definitions within are not full of a bunch of those 5 dollar college words that even attorneys have issues with.

books.google.com... resnum=9&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false volume 1

books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false Volume 2

This link will help explain all the different claims made in the movement it is the top link on that thread you need to concern yourself with at this time, we will get into the others further in the discussions. Feel free to check them all out they are written in the same form as the one starting this thread, easy to read and plenty of footnotes and links within to help further your studies.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Expatriation is not for everyone, many things will change in your life if you choose this path, you will gain freedom like you have never experienced prior, but in your regular daily life you need to do things a little differently. And since this action will remove you from the system you can no longer partake of its benefits.
Can you still own property? YES
You can do pretty much everything you do now, it just has to be done a little differently.
So for now do not focus on future lets focus on learning the real solid law so we better our understanding of things claimed within.

We need to learn to crawl before we can run in a touchdown, with the touchdown being the end goal of expatriation and total freedom.

Thanks for posting the links to the law books.
I look forward to your further posts.

For those interested I'm doing a more detailed paper explaining general order 100 from Lincoln and the Martial law guidelines put in place at that time and how they apply today, it is a long read filled with a lot of law you might want to take a look at it.

Thank you.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So much distraction in the world that many looking for answers have not found the threads I’ve created to help them find the lawful path to truth and understanding, for the past two years I have been on one radio show network or another but for the most part have always been with FreedomReigns below is a link to a study page from there you can find all the archived shows and forum for Q and A as well, including a chat room.

There is other host as well and each with their own opinions on different topics as FreedomReigns has always been a place to give voice to all, including some with very misunderstandings of law and freedom but little by little have been educating them and showing them the lawful path. Look forward to seeing you my phone lines are always open for questions and comments on all topics.

Don’t forget tonight’s show, here is the link to the first archives with study links, every Thursday at 7pm Eastern.

It appears the link mentioned in the last post did not show up so will post it again here: www.freedomreigns.us...

The tread on General Order 100 after being up for many months because I had posted a bump response to bring it back to the top has been removed without a legitimate reason. Have made a few attempts to have this returned including an email to the owners of ATS with no response from them or the mod to my U2U request at this time.

We can only surmise as to their reasons for this actions, I have always played by the rules here and the oversight on political topics has been evident by the removal of many threads not only done by myself but those done by others.

The truth will set you free, and often is kept from you in locations such as ATS to mention just one, but the one place (they) can not remove truth from is our PACs main site located here: www.pacalliance.us...

The People’s Awareness Coalition (PAC) has been around since 1998, one of the oldest in the truth movement on the topic of law and freedom. Also to note that others can not claim is not once has there ever been a problem, ticket, law suite or harassment by any alphabet group in its history.

PAC has perfected the only lawful path to freedom of expatriation and has provided free of charge many pdf, websites and movies to help with your studies including a forum that can be found here: www.notmygovernment.us...

So what are you waiting for personal invitation? Consider this as being so.
Look forward to hearing from you as I’m sure you will have many questions and as always will do my best to point you in the right direction.

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
Just to add a little more to your AWESOME post

the civil war wasn't really a civil war.. it was a war between the states... It was about state rights more so than slavery in fact a lot of the southern states got rid of slavery before the war even started... HELL Lincoln had slaves...

but history is written by the victors... and somehow the South got turned into slack jawed slave owners, instead of people who wanted state rights

great post!

The "State's" rights issue is not quite accurate. Another, extremely astute and knowledgeabl former member pointed out the war was asset seizure. The country itself owed, still owes, money to the crown. The "North" was out of money and wanted to keep paying the monthly nut. The South had outright quit paying, stating they were no longer going to pay and the South had all the valuable ports and ports are where the "state's" income comes from. So old Abe seized the South's assets, the ports, and of course the income producing property, to keep paying the Crown their money - property tax is still a tithe to the crown today. The slave issue was handed to us to make the idea of mass internal death palatable, folks would not want to read, "well, the so called revolution was a fraud, the tax money just came another more palatable route, via property tax (the queen still owns the US), but by the time of Abe's reign as US defacto King the US was broke and could not pay the crown any more, so millions died to pay the crown."