NON-RESIDENT ALIEN: Legal Basis For the Term — by Dr Gerald Alan Brown —– truly a “must read”.

Legal Basis For the Term NON-RESIDENT ALIEN

by Dr Gerald Alan Brown

September 14, 2017

This essay is truly a “MUST READ“.

To open Dr. Brown’s essay (PDF file), CLICK on phrase immediately below

NON-RESIDENT_ALIEN_Legal_Basis_For_Term_NRA_by_Dr_Gerald_Alan_Brown

 

I rarely post other people’s work, but this PAMPHLET (19 pages) stands on its own merits. This is a “MUST READ” essay. The author explains how EACH of  the current 50 Union states are actually independent, sovereign nations; both with respect to each other AND with respect to the United States government (Washington, DC). That is how the Founders set up the government in America and has been affirmed by recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings. (Of course, the district court judges would prefer you NOT know this – and thus they will go to great lengths to keep the terms “sovereign”, “American citizen”, “non-resident alien”, etc. out of their courtrooms.

A man can be a Massachusetts citizen and NOT a U.S. citizen. Thus, he is a NON-RESIDENT ALIEN of the United States (which consists of Washington, DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, other U.S-owned possessions, and permanent military installations with a state.) If that Massachusetts citizen travels to New Jersey, within New Jersey he would also be considered a non-resident alien. Same as if he visited France: he would be considered a non-resident alien of both France and the U.S.

Why is the term “non-resident alien” so important? The reason is JURISDICTION. If you call yourself a U.S. citizen, then you forfeit your unalienable rights as a free man. In exchange, you become a SUBJECT of the U.S. with only privileges and immunities. You traded away your unalienable natural rights as guaranteed by the Constitution for immunities, protections and privileges, which can be granted or revoked at any time by the U.S. government.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Amendment XIV    (first time “U.S. citizen” defined)

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.   [Note the large AND means that BOTH conditions must be met. Thus, if I refuse to consent to U.S. jurisdiction (one of the two conditions), then I am NOT a U.S. citizen.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BUT, if I REBUT and OBJECT TO the U.S. government’s (especially the courts’) PRESUMPTION (in written form, best as a sworn “Affidavit of Truth”) that I am a U.S. citizen; and instead I assert that I am an American citizen, a Massachusetts citizen and a non-resident alien with respect to the United States and of the 49 Union states, then JURISDICTION over me of the United States and other states becomes vastly decreased to the point where very few federal laws apply to me at all. Why? Because I have made known that I am a NON-RESIDENT ALIEN in the 49 other states (nations) and the United States (a separate nation).

And just like the U.S. government’s statutes do NOT apply to a citizen of France (a non-resident alien with respect to the U.S.), the U.S. government’s statutes do NOT apply to me (also as a non-resident alien with respect to the U.S.).

“…at the revolution the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ……and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Chisholm v Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, at pg 471;

“People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY).

“The people or sovereign are NOT bound by general words in statutes [legislated acts, regulations, etc.s, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts [legislated acts or statutes] of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign,…..It is a maxim of the Common Law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound.” People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

 “It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.” Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Legal Basis For the Term NON-RESIDENT ALIEN

by Dr Gerald Alan Brown

September 14, 2017

To open Dr. Brown’s essay (PDF file), CLICK on phrase immediately below

NON-RESIDENT_ALIEN_Legal_Basis_For_Term_NRA_by_Dr_Gerald_Alan_Brown

21_prison_farm_amerika_w_quotes

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: