International Public Notice: Citizenship v Nationality

By Anna Von Reitz

There are only four(4) possible “citizenships” in The United States.

The first form of citizenship predating all the others, is State Citizenship. A State Citizen owes his or her allegiance uniquely to the State where they live — California, Wisconsin, etc. This is an peculiarly American Citizenship, entirely voluntary, and engaged in by adults knowing and being accountable for their actions.

The second form of citizenship is United States Citizenship, a form of citizenship created by the First Naturalization Act, which allows Americans to go through a lengthy and voluntary process allowing them to demonstrate their good character and other attributes allowing them to work for the original American Federal Subcontractor, the Federal Republic, established under The Constitution for the united States of America ( Federal Constitution, 1787).

States of America refers to the doing-business-as name of the Second Confederacy which failed in 1861. The First Confederacy between the soil and land jurisdiction States known as the Union States (soil) and the States of the Union (land) survived intact as a “perpetual Union” under the Laws of Nature; the Second Confederacy between the States of the Union (land and sea) and the States of America (air) failed because business organizations created by men cannot guarantee a “perpetual union” via any means of contract. That is, they attempted to guarantee a contract that they could not possibly guarantee, and in the end, the contract failed in April of 1861. When it did, both the Second Confederacy and the Federal Republic failed; the United States Citizens lost their political status as a result and this form of citizenship has been vacated ever since.

The third form of citizenship is known as U.S. Citizenship and it refers to the citizenship status of British Territorials living in United States Territories and Possessions, such as Puerto Rico and the Mariana Islands; these people are British Territorial Subjects. Puerto Rico remains a British Commonwealth nation to this day. They are foreign with respect to the “free, sovereign and independent states” of the Union States and the States of the Union, but they work for us under The Constitution of the United States of America (Territorial Constitution, 1789).

The fourth form of citizenship known as “citizenship of the United States” attaches to the Holy Roman Empire’s Municipal Government employees who staff the Federal Civil Service working under The Constitution of the United States (Municipal Constitution, 1790). This is the form of citizenship referenced by the infamous (and still unratified) Fourteenth Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America (Territorial Constitution) and also arbitrarily “conferred upon” freed Negroes who were still being denied political status by some of the Southern States after the Civil “War” Conflict. This is again a foreign citizenship unique to the District of Columbia.

The Federal Civil Service and its “citizens of the United States” sided with the Southern States in the Civil War Conflict; afterward, the British Territorial U.S. Congress was looking for a way to collect war reparations from them. Adding the freed plantation slaves to the ranks of the “citizens of the United States” gave them more targets to attach as chattels backing their own public debts, so “citizens of the United States” are chattels and debtors by definition under the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the States of the Union never ratified the Fourteenth Amendment or any subsequent amendment.

That is, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Territorial Constitution stands as a unilateral and substantively unenforceable contract amendment made by employees without the agreement of their employers; it exists only upon the legal presumption that the States of the Union have not formally disagreed, and so it is thought to be accepted by acquiescence, when our States of the Union have never been properly addressed concerning this issue and no ratification process demonstrating due diligence has ever been pursued by our Territorial Employees.

This unilateral action adopting the Fourteenth Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America without formal ratification by the States of the Union, created a citizenry of slaves “owned” by the British Territorial United States as chattel property and as you will read in the (still unratified) Fourteenth Amendment, they were defined first as criminals, and because they were criminals, as slaves.

The effect was to abolish slavery with one hand (Thirteenth Amendment) and institutionalize public sector slavery with the other hand (Fourteenth Amendment). Thus, the issue of slavery was never resolved; private slave ownership was outlawed, but public slave ownership was allowed and institutionalized to the detriment of all concerned.

These are the four — and only four — forms of citizenship that have existed in this country since the War of Independence

With respect to your referenced case, the issue is entirely: (1) when did this issue arise, and what kinds of “United States” citizenship were available at the time? and (2) which of the potentially three (3) forms of “United States” citizenship are being referenced with respect to the intended renunciation?

As you will see by closely reading the document that you presented to us for evaluation concerning an issue that arose in the 1980s, what was actually being considered was United States nationality, not United States citizenship — which are two entirely different things:

https://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/publishedopinions/povol04/4_BAR(PO)25_(1987).pdf

So, now that we have recognized the fact that “citizenship” in this case is a Red Herring, let’s deal with nationality and properly reframe the issue of any stare decisis, which is not about “US citizenship” but instead about American nationality, which precludes any form of US citizenship absent formal proof of its voluntary and conscious and fully disclosed adoption and continuance.

Americans born in one of the States of the Union take their nationality from their State and are known by the demonym of that State of the Union — they are Californians, New Yorkers, Texans, Wisconsinites, Minnesotans, Virginians and so on. That is our actual nationality as a member, by birth, of a nation-state. Unlike people born in virtually any other country on Earth, Americans are not presumed to inherit citizenship obligations at birth and in fact cannot undertake citizenship obligations even if they wish to volunteer, until they reach the age of majority, which for them is still 21 years of age.

British Territorial U.S. Citizens are born as British Subjects and as such inherit citizenship obligations to the British Government at birth and are considered to be British Territorial Nationals — Puerto Ricans, Mariana Islanders, etc.

Municipal “citizens of the United States” likewise are born as Roman Municipal citizens and inherit those obligations to their foreign government at birth; their nationality, to the extent that it exists, is dependent on the existence of the “independent, international city state of Washington, DC”. They can be called “Washingtonians” but that would cause confusion with the people born in Washington, the State. A quick check of the official Government Printing Office list of demonyms shows that this precise confusion does exist and that both populations, those born in Washington the State and those born in Washington the City, are calling themselves “Washingtonians”.

A better answer has been suggested: “District Columbians”, but this has not been adopted.

So, now you know that nationality derives from where you are born, whereas citizenship refers to owing service and duty to the government of that place.

In America, you can be born in a State of the Union, say, Wisconsin, and owe no duty to serve the government of Wisconsin. The government of Wisconsin instead owes a duty of service to the people born in or living in Wisconsin, the Wisconsinites.

If you are born in Puerto Rico, you are a Puerto Rican national by birth — that’s your nationality, and you inherit the citizenship obligations of a British Territorial Subject.

If you are born in Washington, DC., you are a “Washingtonian” (until further notice), and you inherit the citizenship obligations of a Holy Roman Empire city-state.

There are some saving loopholes to all this. If you are born in a British Territory or other foreign country or political status (e.g. born in Washington, DC, because your parents were working there), and one or more of your parents was born in a State of the Union, you can claim their birthplace as your own and adopt their nation-state nationality.

If, for reasons of insanity and fraud, a foreign nation such as the British Territorial Commonwealth nation of Puerto Rico tries to “confer” its citizenship obligations on you, you are also free to expatriate from that presumed foreign political status or any other “conferred” foreign political status (such as “citizen of the United States”) under the Expatriation Act.

Bottom-line – Americans are not “US Nationals” of any stripe and are not heir to any kind of United States citizenship by birth, either.

We belong to our States of the Union (land) and our nation-states (soil), as free, sovereign, and independent people.

All our Territorial and Municipal employees are both contractually and honor-bound to make sure it stays that way; any usurpation against our nation-states or attempts to unlawfully convert our natural political status, is an international crime known as unlawful political conversion, which is a capital crime under both the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Any “misunderstanding” on this point needs to be cleared away. We have herein fully demonstrated our awareness and mastery of these identity issues, have claimed our nationality, and have asserted our natural freedom from any inherited or unconscionable contractual citizenship obligations to any foreign government, Territorial or Municipal.

So any stare decisis established by any international court or commission must firmly establish and respect these obligations on the part of the United States Subcontractors and hold us harmless from foreign citizenship obligations that our foreign employees have attempted to confer on us.

The intention to refuse claims of United States citizenship obligations is not the same as an intention to renounce one’s birthright nationality.

Issued by:

Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary

The United States of America

In care of: Box 520994

Big Lake, Alaska 99652

December 17th 2024

---————————-

See this article and over 5100 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com