WHAT DOES YOUR STATUS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
I M A U.S. CITIZEN, AREN'T I?
This is one of the best explanations of the different "Statutes" there are.
We're state Citizens, not federal U.S. citizens. The government created federal U.S. citizen status via the 14th Amendment to help the freed but stateless slaves. No state made them state Citizens. So the federal govt created 'federal citizen' status, which has civil rights, not unalienable rights.
They use words and phrases that seem similar but are vastly different. When a Maine state citizen travels abroad, he would call himself a citizen of the United States of America, because internationally, Maine is represented by the Union.
But here within one of the 50 states, that same man would be called a Mainer, a state Citizen of Maine, one of the people of Maine. He would not be called a U.S. Citizen or a 'citizen of the United States'.
The reason these phrases and words make a difference is that, first, there is a difference between state citizens and federal citizens. A Mainer differs from the people of Puerto Rico, who live in a territory.
Second, the feds define these phrases in their U.S. Code (of Conduct). If they are speaking or, worse, charging thee, then must request or review the definitions they are using.
One last point, even after declaring to be a Mainer (Maine state Citizen), then they'd try another ruse: "Oh, the State of Maine??" So thy reply would be, "No, not the 'State of Maine'. Just 'Maine': the land, people, and government."
We have a union, not a 'nation'. Unions typically do not have citizens; they have member states. However, to help the freed slaves, the 14th Amendment was passed to establish federal U.S. citizenship status. Has nothing to do with state citizens.
Just look at the Slaughterhouse cases before the Supreme Court. The butchers of Louisiana tried to use the 14th Amendment to stop the state of Louisiana. The butchers lost, and the court ruled that they couldn't use the 14th Amendment because they are not federal citizens, but rather state citizens.
PDF state Citizen vs federal citizen: https://educatedinlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/WhoDoYouThinkYouAre.pdf
State Citizen Manual: https://educatedinlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/CITIZEN-OCR-1.0.pdf
Image from https://imgflip.com/memegenerator
Subscribe to The Rabbit Cavern FOR MORE GREAT CONTENT.
The story of how we were captured.
WHAT HAPPEND?
Woman helps people without license/permission from state.
A woman helps people without a license or state permission.
- Asked them to prove jurisdiction.
- Declined public defender (a benefit).
- Learned she is a state citizen, not a U.S. Citizen.
- They could not arraign her bc she declined a lawyer.
- Requested Article 3 common-law court.
"Why am I here, and how does jurisdiction attach to what I am doing?"
Edie of the family Koenig.
Thanks to All4Freedom
@skillz17q
- https://x.com/skillz17q/status/1992989073141604532
660/5000
WHAT IS LEGAL STATUS?
Systems built on presumed consent depend on ignorance to function; awareness disrupts not belief, but revenue.
"The U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] 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." Movements and individuals who challenge prevailing legal assumptions about citizenship, jurisdiction, and administrative authority are frequently reframed as extremist or dangerous—not necessarily because of violence, but because they destabilize institutional narratives that government, courts, and media rely on for coherence, legitimacy, and compliance.
Labels such as "sovereign citizen" function less as precise legal descriptions and more as risk-management classifications, used to convert complex legal dissent into something that can be dismissed, monitored, or controlled. Once a label is applied, the substance of the argument no longer needs to be addressed; the individual has been administratively neutralized.
Law-enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and partnering institutions are trained to prioritize predictability, uniformity, and administrative order. Individuals who reject standard legal frameworks—regardless of intent—introduce uncertainty into systems that depend on standardized presumptions of consent, jurisdiction, and obligation. That uncertainty is treated as a threat, even when the challenge is lawful, intellectual, or rooted in constitutional inquiry.
Crucially, ignorance within the population is economically functional. When individuals do not understand the distinctions between rights and privileges, they can be routinely subjected to taxation, licensing, fees, penalties, and regulatory burdens that would otherwise require explicit consent or constitutional justification. Compliance—especially uninformed compliance—allows institutions to extract value from labor, time, property, and participation without resistance.
Courts and administrative bodies are materially sustained through predictable revenue streams tied to case processing, fines, fees, enforcement actions, licensing regimes, and federal funding formulas that assume automatic submission to authority. A person who questions jurisdiction, refuses implied consent, or asserts rights as inherent rather than granted interrupts those revenue mechanisms. Such interruption is not merely inconvenient—it threatens operational continuity.
Media amplification reinforces this dynamic by highlighting fringe behavior, isolated confrontations, or sensational rhetoric rather than engaging the underlying legal or philosophical claims. This produces a self-justifying cycle: dissent is portrayed as dangerous, danger rationalizes suppression, and suppression is then cited as evidence that the dissent was a threat all along.
In this environment, public challenges to dominant interpretations of law, citizenship, or freedom are not opposed because they expose hidden secrets, but because they complicate governance, reduce administrative efficiency, and undermine systems that convert human participation into predictable economic output. Institutions that rely on routine compliance react forcefully when individuals cease supplying the passive consent upon which those systems depend.
This breaks it down well.
PRIVILEGES VS. RIGHTS
a quote from Vattel in the Law of Nations
Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch
"WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE SOVEREIGN"
Listen to the BRILLIANCE of the great Justice Gorsuch. License Fockery....let me lay it out for you. He is SAYING, as recently as 2024, not only in his opinion of this EPIC EPIC EPIC SCOTUS ruling, but also in his book tour, that the administrative state cannot violate the private rights of the people. There is no more critical education you can get than this in 2025. Let me explain it in a way ALL WILL UNDERSTAND. If I obtain a driver's license from the state AGENCY OF...the DMV...then THEY CONSIDER ME to be in a CONTRACT with them, and as such, are under their jurisdiction... And I knowingly waived all my rights... And I am considered an unpaid EMPLOYEE of the Agency.... So, therefore, I must be held accountable for breaking their rules and agree to "charge me" with their citations... Then "bill the charges "....which enters me into their private for-profit corporation of the traffic "court", justice "court", etc, they're just names made up. They all get paid by the same higher-up corporations. I do not see a real judge. I do not have a jury. They mail me my only options: 1. Pay and plead guilty! 2. Pay and plead no contest. 3. Plead not guilty and hire ONE OF THEIR TRAINED MONKEYS who will "maneuver" me through their system, where...I WILL END UP PAYING ANYWAY. None of that is in front of an Article III JUDICIARY, entirely separate from an Article I "judge" (costume) created by the legislature, who can only regulate commerce, which a living man or woman can't be IN. I will die on this hill and destroy this until I draw my last breath on earth FOR ALL OF YOU STUCK IN THE HYPNOSIS of the government having authority over your right to travel. For all the losers who Grok this, Grok gathers from ARTICLES WRITTEN BY BAR CARD agents of the state who never want you to know you have freedom and rights. It's right here from the Supreme Court. Traffic court is an in-house court invented by the DMV AGENCIES. Until and unless a victim is harmed, there is no crime...ever. From the Trump EO & Memorandum: "SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024) held that it violates the Seventh Amendment for agencies to adjudicate common-law claims in their in-house courts. Agencies accordingly must repeal any regulation authorizing enforcement proceedings that enable the Agency's courts to impose judgments or penalties that can only be obtained via jury trial in Article III Courts." Agency's courts. "Impose judgments. You are entitled to an Article III common law jury (per the 7th Amendment). They will never put this on the walls of the DMV or traffic courts. It's up to you to exercise your rights. Follow me to freedom! Link in profile! Save the country!
COURTS ARE NOT WHAT WE THINK THEY ARE.
"CIVIL" COURT ISN'T A COURT AT ALL, IT TURNS OUT. IT'S A SCAM TO EXTORT MONEY FROM YOU.
YOU, WHO ARE THE STATE "EMPLOYEE, BY SIGNATURE AND CONSENT.
WHEN DID YOU APPLY FOR A DRIVER'S LICENCE?
DID YOU KNOW YOU WERE ALSO APPLYING FOR A JOB?
NEITHER DID I.
DID YOU RECEIVE FULL AND HONEST DISCLOSURE?
NEITHER DID I.
THE MOST HOPLESSLY ENSLAVED ARE THOSE WHO FALSLY BELIEVE THEY ARE FREE.
ARE YOU AWAKE?
"WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE SOVEREIGN"
"Listen to what Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch said.
Then listen to it again.
Then let it sink in.
Then sleep like a baby. "
The Rubber Duck ™@TheRubberDuck79