Eli James and Roger Sayles discuss the difference between a Constitutional citizen versus a 14th Amendment “citizen”

Radio Ranch 2.02.22 (castbox.fm)

Court rulings proving Roger’s case:

US Citizens are PROPERTY; US Nationals/State Citizens
ARE NOT…Which DO YOU Want to Be?
U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) “The term resident and citizen of the United
States (this means a 14th amendment citizen) is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the
several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.”
“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of
each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others,
and each has citizens of it’s own…”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
“…he was not a citizen of the United States, (again 14th amendment citizen) he was a
citizen and voter of the State,…” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of
the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)
“That there is a citizenship of the United States (again a 14th amendment citizen) and
citizenship of a state,…”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)
“A citizen of the United States is a citizen (14th amendment citizen) of the federal
government …”
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
“Taxpayers are not [de jure] State Citizens.” Belmont v. Town of Gulfport, 122 So. 10.
State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122: “the term ‘citizen’ in the United States, (means United States
citizen or legal fiction) is analogous to the term `subject’ in common law; the change of
phrase has resulted from the change in government.”
Supreme Court: Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226:
“The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights
because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual
citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the
federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”
Supreme Court: US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957:
“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within
the territorial boundaries of the United States.” (This is the legal fiction citizen of the
federal corporation)
The Amendment (14th) recognized that “an individual can be a Citizen of one of the
several states without being a citizen of the United States,” (U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas.
829, 830), or, “a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a state.”
(Slaughter-House Cases, supra; cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875)). (Again
talking about a 14th amendment citizen)
A more recent case is Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors, 221 A.2d 431 (1966) which says:
“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.” Citing U.S. v. Cruikshank, supra. (confusing, but recognizes State citizenship)
The courts presume you to be a federal citizen, without even telling you that there are
different classes of citizens. It is up to you dispute this. Use your passport and the actual
birth certificate. See…
“Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the
right to inquire and determine a tax liability.” U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182
(1982). (This one is misusing the term citizen of the United States for the purpose of
confusion. It is a little tongue in cheek to say, a citizen who is a United States citizen)
“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one
of the United States and one of the state”. (Again making a distinction between a
14th amendment citizen and a State Citizen)
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct
from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those
which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
“…rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights
inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the
United States (14th amendment citizen) as such, and those belonging to the citizens of
each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)
“Therefore, the U.S. citizens (citizen of the federal corporation) residing in one of the
states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal
government as an “individual entity””, Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80
L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773
“…the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state
action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment].”
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520
“The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right
to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee
against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th
Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in
the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th
Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and
immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th
Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory selfincrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National [Federal] citizenship guaranteed
by this clause of the 14th Amendment.”
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99
“The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an
obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the
regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.” W.
W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180 U.S. 452
“A “US Citizen” (citizen of the federal corporation) upon leaving the District of Columbia
becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the commonlaw right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C.
Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914