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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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?

6. 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).

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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!