Martial Law in America Today

                    
                        By: Scott Eric Rosenstiel


      Awareness of the fact that there are two distinct classes of
citizenship in America is growing, but unfortunately most of the
information out there is factually incorrect to varying degrees regarding
the *basis* of citizenship.
      Most people who are learning about citizenship know that there was
a particular status of Citizenship created and established in the
1775-1789 period, and that a second status of citizen was created by the
federal government later, and that this is the "citizen" referred to in
the fourteenth amendment, ratified (at least allegedly) in 1868.  The
problem is that most people still don't understand, in a legal and
technical sense, howor why this is so.  To understand this basis we have
to go back to the period when our dual constitutional system was formed.
      There were originally, as we all know, thirteen states which by 1790
all united under the federal constitution proposed to them in 1787.
Through the Civil War an additional twenty-two states (the act of
congress admitting West Virginia was passed December 31st, 1862, although
it didn't go into effect until June of 1863) were admitted, for a total
of 35.  While the war was still raging and everyone was distracted, the
federal government created, in the same physical space as the existing
35 states, 35 "federal States."  These "States" had the same names and
the same physical boundaries as the real 35, so, apparently, the general
public didn't notice the changeover.  However, you can't really have two
states in the same place.  When the law says that something is true which
isn'ttrue (such as two states being in the same physical place), it's
called a legal fiction.  So there was now the union of the 35 states, and
the new union of the 35 legal fiction "States" (it's far more complicated
than this; this is just a very brief overview).  For the sake of
convenience, they will be referred to here as "states(1)" and the
"States(2)."  Over the years, from 1864 through 1959, the federal
government added another fifteen States(2) into this second union, so
that it now totals 50.
      The reason why there are two classes of citizens is because there
are two classes of states.  There are, in contemplation of law, Citizens
of the 35 states(1) respectively, and citizens of the 50 States(2)
respectively.
      This fact was discovered working backwards.  Realizing that modern
law doesn't refer to the same "states" that we had back in 1789, from
there it was just a matter of tracing the existence of the States(2) back
to their origin.  Here are just a few of the differences between the
states(1) from before the war, and the States(2) from after the war:


    Up until the Civil War, the term "United States," when used in a
      geographically, was always used in the plural.  Since the war, it
     has always been used in the singular.
    Up through 1862, whenever congress wanted to extend a federal law
     to the district of Columbia and the territories, as well as the
      states(1), they'd write "the United States and their territories."
    Since the term "United States" was only the collective name of the
    states(1), the territories needed to be separately mentioned.
   Beginning in 1864, a new form of expression has been used in the
     laws, which now say that the terms "state" and "United States"  
   include the district of Columbia and the territories.  Those places
     were always within federal jurisdiction, which is also called the
     "United States."  This helped reveal the conclusion that the
    "states" that have been referred to since no later than 1864 are
    also within federal jurisdiction.
    Prior to the war, the courts always ruled that the states(1) and
      federal jurisdiction ("United States") were foreign nations to one
    another.  Since the war, the courts have always ruled that the
     "states" aren not foreign to federal jurisdiction.  This would be
    true, of course, if the "states" referred to were in fact within
      federal jurisdiction.
    Prior to the war, the courts ruled that the states(1) were
   *nations*, subject to the law of nations and therefore members of
     the family of nations.  Since the war, the courts have ruled that
     the States(2) are subdivisions of federal jurisdiction, that they
     have no attributes of nationality, and that their power comes from
      the federal constitution.  What else could these States(2) be other
    than federal entities?
   Since the states(1) and federal jurisdiction were separate nations,
      the courts of the former couldn not be compelled to execute the laws
     of the latter.  If they chose to do so, it was a matter of comity
     - the courtesy among nations.  Since the war, the courts have ruled
      that the States(2) must execute all federal laws (except penal
      laws).
    Prior to the war, the courts always ruled that the allegiance which
      the people had to the federal government was derived from their
     state(1) Citizenship.  After the war, the fourteenth amendment was
     adopted (at least allegedly), and the courts have ruled that it
     declares that people owe complete, direct, and immediate allegiance
     to the federal government first, and their "state" citizenship is
     secondary.  The basis of this amendment is that the "states"
    referred to are within federal jurisdiction - the 50 States(2).
    The power to draft is based on citizenship.  Prior to the war the
      federal government never had, and never claimed, the power to draft
      into the regular army, but only to out the state(1) militias.
      Beginning with the war, the federal government has drafted people
      into its armies, and done so on the basis that they were its
     citizens.
    Since the federal government was a foreign power with respect to the
    states(1), and could only come within their borders to execute the
      few governmental powers granted to it, it never had or claimed the
      power to take land by eminent domain.  If the federal government
     wanted land, the state(1) had to take it under its eminent domain
      power, and then transfer ownership to it.  Since the war, the
      federal government has exercised eminent domain over land itself,
     and on the basis that the States(2) are within its territory.
   Bouvier's Law Dictionary, which was published before the war, said
   that a "state," within the meaning of the federal constitution, was
    "one of the commonwealths which form the United States of America."
     Every edition of Black's Law Dictionary (which was first published
    in 1891) says that a "state" is, "One of the component commonwealths
    *OR* states of the United States of America."  It is identifying two
   classes of states: 1. Component commonwealths, and 2. States of the
    United States of America.  The former is the old terminology from
   before the war.  Since that expression identifies all of them (and
    not just the four states[1] that use the term 'commonwealth' in
      their official title), the "states of the United States of America"
     referred to must be identifying different "states" altogether.


      The research for the origins of the States(2) ultimately led to the
year 1863.  I found that congress, through sections 4 and 5 of the
Enrollment Act of March 3rd, 1863 (12 Stat. 731, et seq.) created
military districts under a form of martial law, and I later, through a
local congressman, received information from the Congressional Research
Service showing, beyond all reasonable doubt, that section these sections
were never repealed.  Section 4 creates the districts, and section 5
assigns a provost-marshal to each of them.  The 1990 edition of Black's
Law Dictionary gives the following in its definition of 'Provost-
Marshal': "In military law, the officer acting as the head of the
military police of any post, camp, city of other place in military
occupation, or district under the reign of martial law."
Interestingly, this act is also the first one, at least that I'm aware
of, that uses the term "United States" in the singular, and it is also
the first one to refer to the district of Columbia and the territories
as being within the "United States."
      This was only the beginning.  Since the Civil War many other laws
and governmental-type agencies have come along to further separate us
from our rights, such as the Federal Reserve (private control of the
money supply), FDA (no health freedom), Emergency War Powers (more
military jurisdiction imposed upon citizens and constitutional provisions
suspended), income tax (control of property and business), NSA/CIA/DIA
(speaks for itself), just to name a few.  I realize that those who
believe in the power structure, who believe in Clinton/Dole/Powell etc.
won't like what I'm saying, but I feel compelled to rely on facts, not
faith in the system.  For those of us who do want freedom, I see,
potentially, a great opportunity in positioning ourselves in the
states(1).
      In the meantime, I've already begun, on a very limited basis,
to start applying this information.  Here are five cases:



    In late 1994, a client who is a licensed acupuncturist came tome and
      told me that he needed to get an acupuncturist license.  I told him
      that those laws, being passed since the Civil War, were passed by
      the California State(2), and being within the California state(1)
      and a citizen thereof, he wasn't subject to the license laws.  He
      told me that he needed it anyway, because it would hurt his business
     not to have it.  So I had him fill out the application, NOT GIVE A
      SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER (SSN), and send a letter with the application
      explaining how he's in the California state(1), not the California
      State(2), and therefore not subject to its acupuncturist laws, but
      that because the State(2) was going  around saying that *everyone*
      had to have a license, he had to get one or his business would be
      destroyed.  However, he said, he couldn't be compelled to do things
      that were impossible for him, such as give an SSN, since being in
      a state(1) and therefore not within federal jurisdiction, he didn't
      have one and had no means to get one.  They gave him the license.
      When it came time to get his 1996 license (this would be late '95),
      he received a letter from the acupuncturist board stating that
      State(2) laws "prohibit[s] the processing of an initial or renewal
      license if the applicant fails to disclose his/her social security
      number..." and "If you fail to disclose your social security
      number... your application for initial or renewal license will not
      be processed AND you will be reported to the Franchise Tax Board,
      which will assess a $100 penalty against you."  The letter was dated
      September 21st, 1995.  Earlier this month (January, 1996), I asked
     him about his '96 license.  He said that he applied for it in
      November, he didn't give an SSN, he used the same letter he used the
      previous year (with some slight changes I made), and he got it.
    In early 1995, the business license people came after him for not
      having one.  He responded by saying that since he was in the
      state(1), and not the State(2), he wasn't subject to the business
      license laws.  He wrote to them several times before they
      acknowledged him.  Finally they wrote back saying that the business
      he was conducting was that of a "licensed acupuncturist."  He
      responded by saying that he was compelled to get the acupuncturist
      license, he included a copy of the letter he'd sent them, and that
      he was operating in the state(1), not the State(2).  He's never
      heard from them since.
    Also in early 1995, I had a client in Texas who convinced his
      workplace to except an IRS form W-8: Certificate of Foreign Status.
      He checked that he was an "exempt foreign person" (since he wasn't
      within the 50 States[2], DC, etc.).  His company stopped all
      withholding and he hasn't had a single problem.  In fact, he even
      filed a 1040NR to try to get back the previous year's taxes.
      Initially the IRS re-did his paperwork and said that he actually
      owed them money.  He wrote back explaining how, as a Citizen of the
      Texas state(1) he's an "exempt foreign person" not working within
      the Texas State(2) or any of the other 50 States(2).  They made no
      further attempt to collect the tax, and even assigned him a
      nonresident alien taxpayer identification number (NRA TIN).
      However, at this point he's still fighting it out for the refund.
    In the fall of 1995 I had a client who had expired registration and
      an expired driver's license (DL).  He wanted the California
      Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to acknowledge that he wasn't
      subject to its code.  I had an idea.  I had him write a letter to
      the DMV claiming, "There is no law requiring me to get a driver's
      license."  This isn't really true; I just wanted to see if they'd
      respond.  They did, saying that the Vehicle Code requires everyone
      driving in this state to get a DL.  He wrote back saying that the
      DL law was in the State(2), not the state(1), and that since he was
      in the state(1), and not the State(2), he wasn't liable for getting
      a DL.  They never responded.  What's important here is that when he
      gave them an argument that was wrong ("There is no DL law."), they
      were quick to tell him how wrong he was.  But when he gave them the
      real argument, they didn't respond at all.  If the state(1)/State(2)
      argument is wrong, it seems to me they would have responded, just
      like they did to the first letter.  In the meantime, he's written
     them again, and hopefully they will respond this time.  But I'm not
      holding my breath.
    In late 1995 I had another client, and he was willing to get a DL,
      but he wanted to do it without divulging an SSN.  The DMV here is
      very tough on this issue.  I know of people who've been trying for
      years to get a DL without an SSN - with no luck.  I know of one
      group that spent $800 buying every DMV form, and on top of that
      called DMV and other officials in Sacramento (the capitol of
      California), to see if there was any way to get a DL without an SSN.
      A former employee (and I use that term loosely - it has legal
      implications!) of theirs who worked on the project told me that they
      made no progress and eventually gave up.  In fact, six people sued
      the DMV to get Dl's without SSN's on the basis that they were
      religious protestors to the use of the SSN.  The judge ruled in
      their favor.  The DMV then APPEALED.  They wouldn't have done that
      unless (A) they really think they're legally right in saying that
      a person *must* give an SSN in order to get a DL and/or (B) they
      really want the SSN!  I knew someone who attempted to get a DL
      without an SSN.  He simply filled out the form, didn't put an SSN
      on it, and included a letter to the DMV telling them that he didn't
      have one.  His application was rejected.  I told my client that he
      had little if any chance of getting a DL without an SSN, but I was
      willing to try it as an experiment.  He agreed.  So he took the
      application and filled it out, and did not give an SSN (the
      application said that if he didn't give one, he'd automatically be
      denied).  He included a letter explaining how he was in state(1),
      that the law requiring persons to have DL's was in State(2), and
      that he was only obtaining one because armed agents of the State(2)
      aren't honoring the jurisdictional distinguishment between the
     California state(1) and the California State(2).  On December 26 he
      gave me a nice Christmas gift by calling me up and telling me that
      he got it!  When the other person simply claimed he "didn't have
      one" with no explanation, they rejected his application.  But here,
      where my client argued state(1)/State(2) (and nothing else), the DMV
      gave him the license without so much as a peep, much less appealing
     a judgment like they did with the religious protestors.  This would
      seem to suggest that my client's argument is what made the
      difference between him and the others, and his argument could only
      make a difference if there was at least some merit to it.

     These are just a few examples.  I've had other experiences as well,
and will continue to finish researching this issue and putting it into
effect.  Please keep in mind, however, that this is just a very brief
overview of this subject.  I've collected several thousand pages of
material showing how a second class of "state" was created and how we're
under a form of martial law.  I could further document all kinds of
things that are being suppressed, but I long ago realized that people
won't allow their belief systems to be challenged too much, too fast.
      If you're interested in further information, I have two books
available on this subject.  The first is 'The Sovereignty Manual.'  It's
introductory in nature and can be obtained from me for $5.00.  The other
is my main work to this point, and is called 'The Complete Book On
Sovereign Citizenship.'  It's 535 pages approx., and has hundreds of
cites illustrating the state(1)(2) principle.  It can be obtained from
by sending a check or money order for $59.95 + $4.00 shipping to: Ken
Adler, c/o P.O. Box 950561, Mission Hills, California, 91395.  Or call
me voice at (818) 762-5412.  I also have a computer BBS on this topic,
which you can call at (818) 762-1288.
      I encourage distribution of this article, and only ask that it be
kept in its entirety.  Thanks!

Back To Artical Index

Updated : Wednesday, April 16, 1997 4:12:30 PMCreated: Monday Mar. 04, 1996 11:24:11 AM
© copyright 1995, 1996Jah Red Productions