The American People Are Individual Sovereigns ~~ IF they choose to be . . .
United States of America Was NEVER Intended to Be a Democracy
J.H. Hill, M.D.
Revised: October 5, 2013; Reposted: June 18, 2014
If you do NOT know the information below, then you do NOT know the foundations of American government and law.
The fact is that the United States of America was NEVER intended to be a democracy. Rather, it was intended to be a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, with the central (federal) government having very few and limited powers and extremely limited jurisdiction; and the States having all other powers not delegated to the central government in the Constitution. Even Alexander Hamilton, arguing in the Federalist Papers that a “Bill of Rights” was NOT needed, wrote that the Federal Government could NEVER exercise any power or authority that was not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
Republic: A government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly, or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 388
Of course, the federal government has greatly expanded its powers, at the expense of the States and the People. But the most fundamental principle of any written constitution is that government CANNOT do whatever it chooses! The U.S. never was intended to be, never was and is still NOT a democracy.
“The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what are the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves–the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with.” Lysander Spooner
“The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are FEW and DEFINED [explicitly stated within the Constitution]. Those which remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The powers reserved to the States will extend to all the objects which concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people.” James Madison
“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Alexander Hamilton
“Do not separate text [of the Constitution] from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” James Madison
Ninth Amendment (Bill of Rights)– “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” (re: RIGHTS)
Tenth Amendment – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.” (re: POWERS; and NOT RIGHTS)
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly may NOT be submitted to vote; they depend on no elections.” Robert H. Jackson, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
“The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” (John Marshall, Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison)
“The several states composing the United States of America are NOT united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for the special purposes [and] delegated to that government certain definite (defined) powers and whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. To this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. The government created by this compact was NOT made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers.” Thomas Jefferson: Delegated, Defined and Limited Powers by U.S. Constitution (in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798)
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots.” — Thomas Jefferson – Ultimate Arbiters of All Constitutional Questions: NOT Judges
[in opposition to Marbury v Madison decision by Supreme Court]
“On every question of construction [interpretation] [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson
“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an AMENDMENT in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be NO change by usurpation [“power grabs”]; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
So, What is “Sovereignty”
In old England the land was owned by the king (the sovereign), who would grant permission to select people to use this land in exchange for political, financial and military support. In modern legal terms we would say that the king possessed “allodial title” to all land and the nobles possessed “equity title” – the nobles could use the land, but all land was ultimately owned by the king. (In America prior to 1993 the people, as individual sovereigns, possessed “allodial title” to land they owned. Since 1993 Americans – with the exception of some parts of Texas – possess their land under “equity title” only, as their land was seized by the United States municipal corporation ) Under English law ALL land must be owned by a someone (a man or corporation); there is no such thing as un-owned land, (English law can be contrasted with some other cultures where there is no concept of private, personal land ownership, e.g., American Indians throughout the Americas, various cultures of the South Pacific prior to colonization by Europeans.) In turn these nobles (along with a very few freemen landowners or “freeholders”) rented this land to tenant farmers. If a non-landowner wished to cultivate land, he was forced to rent this land by: 1.) swearing an oath of allegiance to his landlord; 2.) agreeing to turn over rental payments to his landlord; and 3.) agreeing to the rules as set forth by his landlord. The concept of swearing an oath is extremely important in English and American law. In old England, “swearing an oath” or “pledging” was considered a contract, provided “consideration” was exchanged between the parties to the oath – such as allegiance and rent to one’s landlord in exchange the use of land and protection. Breaking that oath or contract was considered a “dishonoring” of the offended party and created a “cause of action” for the offended under commercial law, who then had the right to seek remedy in court. (One should be cognizant of the fact that all contract-commercial law is based on the system of “honor” and “dishonor”. In American courts today a man who swears an oath under penalty of perjury has created a contract between himself and the court – he has pledged to tell the truth in exchange for the legal protection of the court.) Prior to swearing allegiance, the English freeman possessed all the rights and protections of Natural Law (often called Fundamental Law) and Common Law; he was NOT subject to the rules (“private law”) of the landlord. However, having sworn an oath to the landlord, the man became a tenant and “subject” of his landlord or “lord”. In short, by contract (i.e., what we now call “commercial law”) a freeman would surrender some of his Common Law rights in exchange for the privilege of farming the lord’s land[i], thereby making himself a “subject” of the lord – that is, the tenant was waiving the exercise of his Natural rights and placing himself under the jurisdiction of the rules or “private law” of his landlord. Similarly, “sovereignty in government” is most properly interpreted as the individual man being subject to the private rules of conduct (“private contract law”) set forth by the lord or a government, but ONLY because he knowingly and freely consented to be governed by these rules, i.e., “consent of the governed”.
The English Common Law was based on custom and precedent rather than by written code or statutes. Equity Law, initially involving royal edicts, had evolved from the royal power to order or prohibit specific acts (Chancery Law) into the power to legislate “private law”: acts, codes and statutes for those who voluntarily engage via contracts in commerce. This last point must be emphasized: since all valid contracts are voluntary and require informed consent of all parties, then the contractual “private law” created by legislated statutes, acts, codes, regulations, etc. requires the voluntary consent of all parties – “consent of the governed”. Just as a man was subject to a landlord only after he voluntarily consented to contract (“private law”) as a tenant, under the “consent of the governed” principle, so too is voluntary consent required from a man in order for him to be subject to (under the “jurisdiction” of ) legislated statutes, acts, codes and regulations. Therefore, it is vital to understand that “consent of the governed” originally meant the informed and voluntary consent of EACH individual man to a contract (such as a constitution, statute, act, code, ordinance, by-law, etc.) for and by a government. In addition, it is essential to understand that “consent of the governed” also meant the consent of EACH individual man to any changes in that contract for government and/or to the rules of that government, such as acts-statutes, codes, regulations and ordinances. Finally, since each man is an individual sovereign, that man may Every man in colonial America, Britain and the early United States of America understood this concept. Sadly, in today’s America most people have accepted the distorted concept of a collective “consent of the governed” – that through elections a majority (or even a plurality) of the people somehow have granted consent for ALL of the people. We see clearly that “consent of the governed” meant individual man’s consent; and NOT some ethereal type of collective consent.
Following the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution the people were and forever remain “individual sovereigns”. The concept of individual sovereignty stands on its own as a respected and valid concept, at least to those sufficiently educated and informed to understand it. As a king is a sovereign, so each man is an individual sovereign – and just as a sovereign king may consent to restrictions on his rights, so may each man so consent. But the king and the individual retain their sovereignty, which is not forfeited by any contracts or agreements. Therefore, a sovereign (either a King or an individual man) can withdraw his consent at any time for any reason.
“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereignty.” sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Chisholm v. Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472
“The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S.”
Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
“D.” = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)
“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” — Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421
“The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.” American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.
“‘Sovereignty’ means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree.” Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903.
The concept of individual sovereignty  stands on its own as a respected and valid concept – at least to those sufficiently educated and informed to understand it. As a king is a sovereign, so each man is an individual sovereign – and just as a sovereign king may consent to restrictions on his rights, so may each man so consent. But the king and the individual retain their sovereignty, which is not forfeited by any contracts or agreements.
 SOVEREIGNTY (Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition) “The power to do everything in a state without accountability,–to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.” Story, Const. Sec 207
“Sovereignty in government is that public authority which directs or orders what is to be done by each member associated in relation to the end of the association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is the person or body of persons in the state to whom there is politically no superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which necessarily follow is “sovereignty.”” Today “sovereignty in government” in its most expansive sense is meant as “supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of “sovereignty” is will or volition as applied to political affairs.” City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 52 Ariz. 1, 78 P.2d 982, 986.
RESERVATION OF SOVEREIGNTY: “ (b) Even if the Tribe’s power to tax were derived solely from its power to exclude non-Indians from the reservation, the Tribe has the authority to impose the severance tax. Non-Indians who lawfully enter tribal lands remain subject to a tribe’s power to exclude them, which power includes the lesser power to tax or place other conditions on the non-Indian’s conduct or continued presence on the reservation. The Tribe’s role as commercial partner with petitioners should not be confused with its role as sovereign. It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head. MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148.
In Bond v. U.S. (2011) the Supreme Court recognized individual sovereignty when it ruled 9-0 that a criminal defendant – not just states – indicted on charges of violating a federal statute, has standing to challenge the validity of the statute on the ground that it infringes on the powers reserved to the states and/or to the people under the Tenth Amendment. Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355, 180 L. Ed. 2d 269 (2011) [2011 BL 158313]
It would have been more appropriate had the Supreme Court affirmed individual sovereignty over the federal government using the 9th Amendment, but unfortunately Bond’s attorneys made a crucial error by chosing ONLY the 10th Amendment on which to base the challenge to federal jurisdiction, thereby limiting the Court’s scope. Despite winning the appeal, Bond’s attorneys’ error was important in that it dealt only with POWERS (10th Amendment); NOT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (9th Amendment).
- 9th Amendment (Protection of individual rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.)
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
- 10th Amendment (Powers of States and the people.)
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Three points deserve emphasis here.
(1) The 9th Amendment guaranteed the natural RIGHTS possessed by the individual man (the people), whether or not listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10). Thus, the 9th Amendment is an affirmation of individual sovereignty.
(2) The 10th Amendment guaranteed the POWERS reserved to the States or the people (as individuals) provided that:
(a) such powers had not been delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; OR
(b) such powers had not been prohibited to it by the States.
(3) While a POWER derived from a right may be delegated and the exercise of a RIGHT temporarily waived, a man, as an individual sovereign, NEVER waives or gives up possession of his natural rights.
While item (a) above – the issue of “delegated powers” – is often brought up in the courts, the issue of “powers prohibited by the States” is often ignored in terms of the powers of a single sovereign State. As the papers of the Federalists and anti-Federalists make clear, the “powers prohibited by the States” clause affirms the right of each State to prohibit the exercise of a particular power – in short, what is currently being termed in newspapers as the “state nullification of federal statutes” under the concept of each State’s sovereignty over the federal government. However, it should be remembered that each individual man forever has retained all of his natural rights and that, as an individual sovereign, his rights are NOT subject to any limitations by government. He may temporarily delegate some POWERS to a government, but as an individual sovereign with all his RIGHTS intact, a man may revoke from government those delegated POWERS at any time for any reason at his own will – the man’s wish becomes the law. Once again, “The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.” American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047 and “To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.” [Merrion et al., DBA Merrion & Bayless, et al. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe et al. (1982) 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144_148]
It should be noted that in America the various States were considered individual, sovereign countries; and each State was considered was “foreign country” with respect to the other States. Similarly, when the Union called the United States of America was formed, each of the various States was considered a “foreign country” with respect to the federal government. Therefore, a federal court is considered a “foreign court” with respect to each of the various States and to the people. This concept remains valid today, as the Supreme Court has affirmed numerous times. In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.,240 U.S. 1 (1916), the Supreme Court ruled that Brushaber, under the law, was a “nonresident alien” of the United States corporation. Frank Brushaber made an important statement of fact which remained unchallenged at every level in the federal courts. He identified himself as a citizen of the State of New York and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the City of New York. He did not identify himself as a “citizen of the United States”, as a “United States citizen” or as a “resident of the United States”. He indicated that he lived and worked in New York State, outside the District of Columbia and outside any territory, possession or enclave governed by the Congress of the United States. “Enclaves” are areas within the 50 States which are expressly “ceded” to Congress by the acts of State Legislatures (e.g., military bases).
The Supreme Court ruled that Brushaber was a “nonresident” because he lived and worked outside the areas of land over which the Congress has exclusive jurisdiction. The authority to have exclusive jurisdiction over this land was granted to Congress by the authorities at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (“1:8:17″), and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (“4:3:2″), in the U.S. Constitution – what some legal experts have called the “FEDERAL ZONE”. The Supreme Court also ruled that Brushaber was an “alien” because his statement of citizenship was taken as proof that he was not a citizen of the federal zone. He was not a “citizen of the United States” nor a “United States citizen”, either through birth or naturalization, because the term “United States” in this context means only the federal zone. Therefore, he was an alien with respect to the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves, territories and possessions over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. This may sound strange to the casual reader, but the federal statutes do not refer to creatures from Mars: the lawyers who created the federal statutes knew precisely what they were writing, even if the average man does not.
However Frank Brushaber also made a fatal error which contributed to his ultimate downfall in the case. He identified his opposition as a corporation chartered by the State of Utah. This was incorrect. The Union Pacific Railroad Company was originally created in the year 1862 by an Act of Congress. The stated purpose of the corporation was to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean (from the “Union” to the “Pacific”). This Act was passed on July 1, 1862, by the Thirty-Seventh Congress, Second Session, as recorded in the Statutes at Large, (December 5, 1859, to March 3, 1863, at Chapter CXX, page 489). At that time, Utah had not yet been admitted as a State of the Union and therefore was not considered one of the several States. Utah was still a territory, i.e., a “federal state” within the “federal zone” over which the Congress indeed had exclusive legislative jurisdiction.
Being a creation of Congress, the Union Pacific Railroad Company was found to be a “domestic” corporation under the law – that is, the Union Pacific Railroad Company was with the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress and the United States municipal corporation (the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves, territories and possessions) as per the District of Columbia Act of 1871 and subsequent related acts. This is another term which is very confusing to the casual reader. In common, everyday language, the term “domestic” is often used to mean “inside the country”. For example, airports are divided into different areas for domestic and foreign flights, in order to allow Customs agents to inspect the baggage and passports of passengers arriving on flights from foreign countries. However, under federal statutes, the term “domestic” does not mean “inside the country”; it means “inside the federal zone” (the United States municipal corporation) as its own country which is an area that is much smaller than the whole country. Accordingly, a “foreign” corporation is a corporation chartered by a government that is “outside the federal zone”, just as each of the 50 sovereign States is still considered a “foreign country” in relation to the United States municipal corporation (the Federal Zone).
The FEDERAL ZONE consists of the enclaves, territories and possessions over which the Congress of the United States municipal corporation called the “United States.” (the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves, territories and possessions) has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. California is outside of the federal zone, for example, and corporations which are chartered in the California state are foreign corporations with respect to the federal zone called the “United States.”. Similarly, corporations chartered in France are likewise foreign corporations with respect to the federal zone called the “United States.”. It is simple, once you understand the proper legal definitions of the terms “foreign” and “domestic” in the federal statutes. To make things even more confusing, “California state” is one of the 50 sovereign States and therefore is NOT subject to the statutes legislated by Congress. However, the “State of California” is a sub-corporation of the United States municipal corporation called the “United States” and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the federal zone and Congress’ statutes.
After the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and District of Columbia Act of 1871 was enacted by Congress:
“It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.” [whether or not the “United States” means the federal government as a corporate TRUST established by the Constitution and the limited territory over which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority OR as (definition #3 above) a private, foreign municipal corporation] Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36,(1873)
As discussed above, each man is an “individual sovereign” and the People, as individuals or as a group, are sovereign. The People are not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, even though they are born in one of the various 50 states within the geographic United States. The 14th Amendment attempts through confusing language to invert this relationship. One of the qualifications to be a “citizen of the United States” is that one is required to be born or naturalized in the United States. Another qualification is that one is required to be, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof. [of the United States]” It is not possible to be a citizen of the United States without meeting BOTH conditions: born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Thus, if you are born or naturalized, AND if you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then you automatically qualify as a citizen of the United States (which means the United States municipal corporation called the “United States” – including ONLY the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves, territories and possessions.
From the point of view of the federal enforcers of federal acts or statutes, the qualifications are worked in reverse. They reverse-interpret the 14th Amendment as incorrectly meaning that if you say and/or do not deny that you are a citizen of the United States, then that automatically – as an unrebutted presumption – means you are totally subject to its jurisdiction [and have been born or naturalized]. This opinion is not shared by the judicial branch. See 14 C.J.S. 426, 430 (Corpus Juris Secundum):
The particular meaning of the word “citizen” is frequently dependent on the context in which it is found, and the word must always be taken in the sense which best harmonizes with the subject matter in which it is used. “One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for other purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for political purposes. So, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as such he is entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property, even though he is not vested with the suffrage or other political [legislated] rights.
 Cal.–Prowd v. Gore, 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
 Cal.–Prowd v. Gore. 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
La.–Lepenser v Griffin, 83 So. 839, 146 La. 584
N.Y.–Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N.Y. 454
 U.S.–The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322
–Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208
Md.–Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82
Mass.–Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531
R.I.–Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com’rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212
 Mass.–Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568″
In any case, if you fail to object to the government’s view of your citizenship status, then the federal government will PRESUME that you agree with their view and that you are subject to the acts-statutes of the federal government. That means you have waived your rights, and now possess only privileges as granted by the federal government. Therefore, the most practical method for a man to retain his rights as a individual sovereign is to reject the title of “citizen” and to state explicitly that one is NOT a “citizen of the United States” or a “citizen of a State”; and that one does NOT consent to federal jurisdiction and waives all benefits and privileges resulting from being a “citizen of the United States” or a “citizen of a State”. And, for goodness sake, do NOT ever claim to be a “sovereign citizen” – an obvious contradiction in terms, since one cannot possibly be a “citizen” and still retain one’s sovereignty.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END OF ESSAY +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++