STATES ARE COUNTRIES

People's Awareness Coalition

INHABITANT VS. RESIDENT.

By LB Bork of the People's Awareness Coalition and author of The Red
Amendment
For those who have read The Red Amendment, you understand that things are basically
set-up to benefit the ruling elite. I say this not only from the standpoint of the fourteenth
amendment, but it has been planned that way since day one. Yes, I am talking about the
original Constitution that was drafted by the founding fathers of the United States of
America.
Accordingly, as the indoctrination has been progressive, and is still going on
today, we must look at a few issues that are legally involved. (For instance- In the movie
The Patriot it was mentioned that after breaking away from England, the Americans
were founding an American nation. Look for such in the meeting of the colonies in the
start of the movie. First, I will direct you to some language that is found in the original
body of the federal constitution; but before I do that, let me state that the following
language has perplexed me for about 3 years. About 6 months ago it came to me while
reading an original French translation of The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel, that I
did not fully understand what I am about to show you. I now understand what I read
really means.
To open this presentment, the following two clauses of which I am going to show
you are taken from Article I of the original Constitution, and contain 3 issues each that I
will cover; but first I will cover the issue in each one that covers the word inhabitant;
they are as follows:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not
have attained to the Age of 25 Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United
States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be
chosen.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 3. No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have
attained to the Age of 30 Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and
who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
First, and getting off point a bit, if one would examine the term congress, they would
find that such term is relative to international law.
CONGRESS. In international law. An assembly of envoys, commissioners,
deputies, etc., from different sovereignties who meet in concert measures for their
common good, or to adjust their mutual concerns. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition
Of course, that definitive explanation is from Black's Law, 4th, that has been since
removed in the new editions of Black's, in order that THEY may keep all Americans
ignorant.
As defined, you can see that a congress is an assembly of several sovereignties.
Unlike other countries, such as England, the people of each state (country) in the Union
collectively make-up the sovereignty of each respective state (or nation), and the
sovereignty of each state (or nation) of which has not been transferred to the State of the
Union, is reserved to each state (or nation) respectively; such international right is
protected by the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. An example of transfer of
sovereignty is- A state (nation) of the Union being able to create its own currency (coin),
as such has been relinquished under international agreement by Article I, Section 10, of
the Constitution. In opinion of this writer- this was the tool for what has transpired- A
private monetary system that operates on debt.
The reason I brought this to your attention at this time is- I have come to
understand through my research that there is one most important factor to sovereignty,
which is- Absolute control of land. Hence, the nexus between a people and sovereignty
is- The absolute control/ownership of land of their country. Any public land (i.e. land not
under private ownership) is then transferred to the State (i.e. the central or national
government for such nation) for control. There are other very important factors that are
attached to this of which I will go over herein below.
Now we may continue on why the word Inhabitant was utilized in Article I.
Simplified, in applying syntax, both sections above cited from said Article set forth that:
Both members that are elected to Congress (an international organization), by their nation
or State, respectively, shall not be an inhabitant of the country of which they represent.
Further clarified, because this is fundamentally a word puzzle, as the drafters of the
original Constitution were intentionally trying to conceal the truth so that only the most
prominent legal scholars would understand the true construction of the Union, and
the ultimate plan, what such parts of said Article simply state is that- All representatives
and senators must be a national of the country they represent, and must not be an
inhabitant. To further clarify this matter- Congressional members must owe political
allegiance to their state, nation or country. In other words- One that is part of a sovereign
body must owe allegiance to it to properly and/or legally represent it, and accordingly,
any such person must be a national of (or have the nationality of) any such sovereign
body.
You may be asking why the language of- No Person shall be a Senator who
shall. . ., when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen was
used instead of simply stating- No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have the
nationality of the country of which he is elected. The answer simply is- Because this
would make it too easy and it would spill the beans on the planned creation of the
Communist Nation that is under the direct control of the entity entitled the United
States (and its rulers) that is (are) treating Americans as vassals. (Vassal, n. 1. A person
who held land from a feudal lord and received protection in return for homage and
allegiance. 2. A bondman; a slave. 3. A subordinate or dependent. American Heritage
Dictionary)
Now, as I stated above, there are three issues that are involved in this section
which create its seemingly planned complexity. I have covered the first issue, which was
the usage of the word or term Inhabitant; accordingly now let us look at the other two
One might venture that maybe this is not as devious as stated. As many undoubtedly
know, I have covered the term citizen of the United States extensively in the past.
Firstly, I am not one that buys into the capitalization of the word citizen as having any
relevant content to being that of a de jure citizen. One reason being- There are many
other words in the body of the original Constitution that are capitalized, to which no
really clear meaning can be assigned. It is hard to say, as the terms of the Constitution
were not defined, but it is my opinion that the term Citizen may take on the same
irrelevance to having any special meaning, as many of the other capitalized words in the
document did not. In furtherance of my position, as the original 13th amendment applied
to Americans that either participated in any of the several State governments or federal
government, another point is- The term citizen as it was used in the original 13th
amendment was not capitalized. My two positions on this subject should totally denounce
any position that the capitalization of the word citizen in the original Constitution
means anything special, and accordingly, any argument as to such word meaning
anything special being that of frivolous.
All such matters notwithstanding, the term citizen of the United States is still
utilized in the body of the original Constitution; to amply explain the usage of such, we
must look to another relevant part of the Constitution, which is Article II, section 1. Such
section is as follows:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the
time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age
of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The two important references here are: 1) natural born citizen; and, 2) citizen of the
United States. Respectively, what is defined in (1) is: A native (native =native state
national) of one of the [U]nited States; and in (2): a person (which such term I will go
into more depth below) that lived in any/many of the united States of America for 14
years, at the signing of the Constitution. The use of resident in the above section is
important, inasmuch as such term is fundamentally the same as the term inhabitant.
Now, in further reference to the term resident in said part of Article II listed above,
such is just stating that: As he was unknown- so was his domicile, so anyone that was
to be President of the United States of America at the signing of the Constitution must
have lived in one, or any, of the [U]nited States of America for a period of at least 14
years to become President; and speculating, must have the nationality of, and owe
allegiance to, any such state when he ran for the office. The use of the term natural born
citizen is simply to reference that any President must be born in one of the countries of
the Union thereafter.
Accordingly, now, back in reference to the other two issues that are referenced in
Article 1, sections 2 and 3, the most important thing to note is that: The same terminology
is found in these 2 sections, which is citizen of the United States. Again, like in Article
II, section 1, such term is just to reference that a representative or senator must,
respectively, live in one of the [U]nited States of America, seven or nine years at the ages
set forth, in order to be a member of Congress; and again; not be an inhabitant of the
country of which they have been chosen to represent.
So, in reference to the usage of the term citizen of the United States in the body
of the original Constitution (or the original thirteenth amendment), it is just in reference
to being that of a member of one of the nations of the American [u]nion and having the
guaranteed political right to participate in state or federal government. However, as I
stated in the new version of The Red Amendment, after the usage of citizen of the
United States in the fourteenth amendment, the term can only mean a person or
subject of the federal government, as the language of: 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. is used. The word and, as used in this
section, sets forth a so-called dual citizenship, such status de facto as being virtually, as a
matter of fact, nonexistent before the passage of said amendment. That was not
lawfully ratified: see the Congressional Record-House, J une 13, 1967, pp 15641-15646.
The dual citizenship persona is the nexus to vassalage in the fourteenth amendment
political system.
As I stated herein above, I mentioned that I would expand on the term person-
and now is a good time to expand on such term. The term generally has a negative
affiliation attached to it; however, it really depends on the context in which it is used. The
term itself is just a position that explains or sets forth a certain status or persona of a
man or woman. Below such is defined:
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called
natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human
being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he
holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to
the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him,
and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. Bouvier's Law, 1856
So you see, the term is not always negative. If you are not a person you are not a
member of a nation, and therefore you are stateless, hence have no protections
internationally. That is why I emphasize that status is the key to natural rights that are
secured to the Constitutional system that is established in America. Your persona is the
status you hold in such system. In other words- what person are you? If you are
claiming to be a U.S. person i.e. a citizen and national of the United States (see Title 26
section 7701(a)(30)), you are a resident of the country of which you are dwelling in, or
an inhabitant of. This is the alternate jurisdiction that has been established largely by
the 14th amendment governmental system. The term inhabitant appears in section 2 of
the fourteenth amendment; and the term reside appears in section 1. In order for you to
fully understand of what I assert, let us go over some important terms that relate to such
matters:
RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his
domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is
not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment,
though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law J ourn. 68; 3 Hagg.
Eccl. R. 373; 20 J ohn. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.
INHABITANT. One who has his domicil in a place is an inhabitant of that place;
one who has an actual fixed residence in a place.
The natives consist: 1) Of white persons, and these are all citizens of the United
States, unless they have lost that right. 2) Of the aborigines, and these are not in general,
citizens of the United States nor do they possess political power. 3) Of negroes, or
descendants of the African race, and these generally possess no political authority
whatever, not being able to vote nor hold any office. 4) Of the children of foreign
ambassadors, who are citizens or subjects as their fathers are or were at the time of their
birth.
Both from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856
As you can see, an inhabitant takes on many different statuses, and includes the
meaning of having a domicile and being that of a native of a location, and also may be an
Indian or one of African decent; and a resident comes into a location and may remain
there or may establish his domicile. We already know that U.S. representatives and
senators cannot be inhabitants of the states that they represent, but yet the above states
that all white persons (at that time) that were citizens of the United States were also
deemed inhabitants. Using common sense, an inhabitant has no connection to a fixed
area- He lives in a location by habit- see below:
Inhabitant, n. One that inhabits a place, especially as a permanent resident: the
inhabitants of a fishing village; snakes, lizards, and other inhabitants of the desert.
habit, n. A recurrent, often unconscious pattern of behavior that is acquired
through frequent repetition. Both from American Heritage Dictionary
So by logical conclusion, using what has been set forth in the Constitution, the
term natural born citizen, which is a man born into a specific nation (applying the
principles of Vattel); and the term citizen of the United States, which defines a
naturalized man, or can be construed to mean a man in one of the sundry [U]nited States,
is either an inhabitant or a resident of any one of the [U]nited States, or may have claimed
his domicile thereof. Largely, the term citizen of the United States was just a simply
way of stating that one had a right to participate in the political system of the United
States. The use of the word inhabitants in section 2 of the 14th amendment imports that
anyone that lives in the state, who is a citizen of the United States, may vote or
participate in the 14th amendment political system. In general, before the 14th
amendment, any person that was born in any one of the [U]nited States could move to
another state in the Union and participate in government, as long as any such person was
allowed. I have seen such being true and documented. It was usually stated as being that
of comparable to how the first President was qualified- in other words- One had to be
resident in the state for a certain period of time before he could become governor,
representative, etc.. These rules were generally written or attached to a constitution of a
state. Such persons then had a national domicile and were no longer residents.
To further explain the difference between inhabitant, resident and domicile, let us
look at another definition from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856:
DOMICIL. The law affixes a domicil. 1. Public officers, such as the president of the
United States, the secretaries and such other officers whose public duties require a
temporary residence at the capital, retain their domiciles. Domicil of origin is understood
the home of a man's parents, not the place where, the parents being on a visit or journey,
a child happens to be born. 2 B. & P. 231, note; 3 Ves. 198. Domicil of origin is to be
distinguished from the accidental place of birth. 1 Binn. 349. The domicil of origin,
which has already been explained, remains until another has been acquired. In order to
change such domicil; there must be an actual removal with an intention to reside in the
place to which the party removes. 3 Wash. C. C. R. 546. A mere intention to remove,
unless such intention is carried into effect, is not sufficient. 5 Greenl. R. 143. When he
changes it, he acquires a domicil in the place of his new residence, and loses his original
domicil. But upon a return with an intention to reside, his original domicil is restored. 3
Rawle, 312; 1 Gallis. 274, 284; 5 Rob. Adm. R. 99.
Domicil- Bouvier's Law, 1856.
As you can plainly see, all officers of the United States (President, senators, etc.) retain
their domicile, but have a residence in Washington D.C.. This means that such officers
maintain the nationality of the state they are from- be it their natural (native) state, or an
acquired one.7 In Vattel, i.e. the rules under the Law of Nations, a man owes a natural
allegiance to his state or country of birth.7 When he abandons his birth country, with the
intention of never coming back to it, he may be expatriating or simply just emigrating
from it. Unless a man gives his express allegiance to another sovereign, he maintains
natural allegiance to his birth country. Generally, when one is naturalized into another
country or body politic, natural allegiance is then negated; then any such person is no
longer a resident or an inhabitant of a country, but rather has established a domicile
and a new nationality. Since there has been a concerted effort since day one to convince
everyone in America that the United States of America is a nation, these matters have
never been discussed or expressly documented in American law books. The reason why
is to create a feudal system with Americans being in fiefdom, thus having the United
States acting as their sovereign. Of course, this is just the presumption that has been
established; the large part of it has been created by operations of law, which are largely
caused by the 14th amendment.
The legal language that is used in the 14th amendment, such as inhabitant and
resident, imports confusion of the different jurisdictions that are established. To expand
on this, and to get at the matter at hand, as stated- resident and inhabitant are
somewhat synonymous; and such terms are not at all relative to nationality or being a
member of a nation. Earlier I stated that things did not become clear until I read an
original French translation of The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel. The edition that is
listed in the Library of Congress, which is published by the Carnegie Institution of
Washington, uses the term of resident, in chapter XIX, of book 1, as being a man that is
not a citizen of a country; however, in the original French translation, the same chapter
defines a resident as being an inhabitant (and also, is not a citizen). So, in my mind
the two words are synonymous. Both terms embody a man that lives or dwells habitually
in a place/country not his own or that he does not have political ties to. One that
participates in the 14th amendment governmental system (i.e. a person that maintains
U.S. citizenship or votes) has forfeited his right to be a sovereign part of his country and
has given it to the United States, thus, is a vassal/subject. Such a person is a resident of
the true country that has been overlaid by the fraudulent country (USA) created by the
color of the 14th amendment; the United States, which includes the several States de
facto, that U.S. citizens have installed (i.e. have voted for), is/are acting as an absolute
sovereign over the people of each state in the Union. This is generally why the States
and United States claim sovereign immunity when one attempts to sue them. PEOPLE.
(A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its collective and political
capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856).
To clarify, so that you understand completely- A resident or inhabitant is not
living in his country as a national of such country or as part of its sovereignty, but is
actually a dweller in a foreign or unattached jurisdiction and owes his allegiance to
another or foreign (i.e. different) sovereign. In other words- there is no absolute right to
the land of which any such resident or inhabitant lives. All land rights of such a person
are purely that of: 1) purchase i.e. commercially based ownership, like that of a person of
a foreign country or sovereignty; and/or, 2) privileged usage i.e. similar to that of a serf
or vassal affiliation to a sovereign, which again is fiefdom:
fiefdom, n. 1. The estate or domain of a feudal lord. 2. Something over which one
dominant person or group exercises control (e.g. Congress). American Heritage
Dictionary.
In example: One that comes from J apan and buys property that is for sale and is taxed as
a foreigner or alien.
This is simply how the socialist/communist system has been created under the
fourteenth amendment- With the United States and the de facto States acting as the
sovereign (king), by an operation of law people have been lifted from their connection
to the land so that their absolute ownership or title is negated; this so they may be taxed
for the benefit of the whole. Of course this is considered servitude, which is directly
prohibited by the new 13th amendment, however is tacitly remedied by having people
commit treason to their state of right by tricking them into participating in the 14th
amendment governmental system, thus, making them commit a crime (treason or breach
of allegiance) so they may be put into involuntary or forced servitude.
Of course the rulers go unscathed in this system. Again, we must consider that the
language of who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall
be chosen. As being used in Article I. The word when means simply- at the time that.
Such Article does not state who shall not, after elected, be an inhabitant. . ., being in
reference to having to leave the state (or country) of which he represents to go and have a
residence in Washington D.C. (but is not truly, in pure sense, a resident of such
district). (resident, Abbr. res. 1. One who resides in a particular place permanently or for
an extended period, as: A diplomatic official residing in a foreign seat of government. -
resident, adj. 1. Dwelling in a particular place; residing: resident aliens. 2. Living
somewhere in connection with duty or work. American Heritage Dictionary) It is obvious
that such language relates to before or during the election, which is to mean, as I stated
earlier herein, being a national of such state or country or having allegiance to such state
or nation. The language (inhabitant), as used in Article I, was believed to have been
stealthily established hoping that the people of America could be moved around to the
different states in the Union without knowing their absolute right to land. As The term or
word inhabitant can mean anything from a slave to a snake, and includes a citizen of the
United States. This being in opposition to Vattel, who termed an inhabitant as a man
that was in a country not his own. A citizen of the United States can be an inhabitant (and
be in the [U]nited States of America) if he is in a state or country that is not his own. In
volume 109 of PACs Newsletter I mentioned that there was always a scheme to produce
a federal citizenship and evidenced the language in- An act to establish a uniform rule of
naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject. (To contact PAC
see the advertisment on page 8 of this issue of the Light) Approved April 14, 1802.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted, &c, That any alien, being a free white person, may be
admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them Such language (i.e.
or any of them) also could mean- . . .become a citizen of the United States i.e. one of
them. But, who knows what they meant? In view of this, I have seen a lot of tricks in my
years of study. One must scrutinize everything, such as: The term inhabitant also
appears in Article II that is in reference to presidential elections, and is as follows: The
Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of
whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. Again,
the language of shall not be an inhabitant appears. At least one person (but also- both)
who is chosen to be President cannot be an inhabitant, nor can the elector i.e. all
presidential candidates and electors must have a nationality or a relationship to the state
of which they are affiliated. In other words- The language in said Article has no purpose,
it is just gibberish with purpose of: 1) creating confusion; and, 2) sets forth the nexus of
being associated to the state/nation that they represent in the international organization-
The United States.
IN CONCLUSION: Americans are dwelling in the true countries of the Union
as inhabitants or residents. Americans that are not nationals of their state or country are
essentially detached from the land and are in essence subjects or vassals. (dwell or
dwelled, dwelling, dwells. 1. To live as a resident; reside. American Heritage Dictionary)
This is how the federal parks have been founded (e.g. This land is my land. . . This land
is your land =communist conditioning), all such land being an adverse possession with
respect to nationals de jure. The nexus to true sovereignty is maintaining/expressing
nationality of one of the countries of America.

ORDER THE RED AMENDMENT NOW