HELP LEGALIZE FREEDOM

Affiant does hereby and herewith formally invoke his rights and status under such Law which requires the Respondent now answer for its ultra vires actions pursuant to Affiant's demand that Respondent forthwith show:

Quo Warranto
(BY WHAT AUTHORITY?)

ORIGINAL WRIT OF DEMAND TO SHOW QUO WARRANTO: How Many Classes Of Citizens Currently Inhabit America? Answer: There are two (2) classes of citizens currently inhabiting America. (1) The first class of citizens are the ''American Citizens'' / ''state Citizens'', who inhabit the land known as ''the several states of the Union'', living within the geographic boundaries of the country known as ''America'', and who live within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Common Law; and, (2) those of whom the second class is comprised are known as ''federal citizens'' / ''citizens of the United States''; i.e., citizens of the federal government, who seem to be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the de facto government, which is a foreign corporate fiction now operating as a collection of corporate entities and subsidiaries; e.g., the de facto federal, state and local governments, offices, agencies, municipalities, et al, using various names not excluding that of the ''United States'', et cetera . . . The first class of Citizen appears in the Qualifications Clauses of the U. S. Constitution, whereby the term ''Citizen of the United States'' is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.) Note the UPPER-CASE ''C'' in ''Citizen''. The pertinent court

cases define the term ''United States'' in these Clauses to mean ''States United'', and not the federal government currently operating as a foreign corporation using the name ''United States''. Therefore, the original, full term ''Citizen of the United States'', when properly used within its intended text means: Page 1 of 4.

'A Citizen is the sovereign who inhabits the land found within one of the common-law bound, de jure Republic states, joined within the Union of the several states, which is first declared within Article I of the Articles of Confederation, ratified in the year 1781; wherein it is affirmed '' The Stile of this Confederacy shall be the United States of America." This is further

guaranteed at Art IV, Sec 4 of the Constitution for the United States of America, ratified in the year 1789.' (*Note that Abraham Baldwin and William Few were

the Georgia delegates who signed the Constitution for the United States of America on September 17th, at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787; whereby Georgia is joined as a signatory to the Constitution.) Similar terms are found in

the Diversity Clause at Art III, Sec 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Art IV, Sec 2, Clause 1, U. S. Constitution. (Also note that:

Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizen under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914-915

(1918) for definitive authority on this key point.) The second class of citizen originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, wherein the term ''citizen of the United States'' is used. This Act was later codified at Title 42 U.S.C. 1983. Note the lower-case ''c'' in ''citizen''. The pertinent court cases

hold that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise, primarily for the former slaves who President Lincoln had previously attempted to free with the Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the 13th amendment Page 2 of 4.

banning slavery and involuntary servitude.

However, by failing to use the

unique and appropriate term ''federal citizen,'' which would properly identify any 2nd-class of citizens now living within the several states, such as that found in Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (''But a state and the federal government each has citizens of its own''), and since it may be rightfully presumed that the federal, state and local body-politic now consists of intelligent men and women, many of whom are attorneys, it would seem clear that an attempt is being made to confuse these two classes of citizens by attempting to make it appear as though all citizens are ''equal'' under the 14th amendment, and later under the Civil Rights Act of 1964; whereas rather than rightfully elevating the rights and status of the 2nd-class-citizen to that of the 1st-class-American Citizen, and pursuant to the abuse in power of the Commerce Clause of the U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (Erie R. R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938)), which ultimately results as impetus to the ''Erie doctrine,'' by way of the ''Supremacy Clause,'' while operating under a ''presumption of law,'' the inferior courts (acting under Art. I, Sec. 8, CI. 17 and Art. IV, Sec. 3 CI. 2 of the U. S. Constitution) now arbitrarily 're-venue' the 1st-class-American Citizens from their beloved Constitutional, Common-Law venue (the Supreme Law of the Land), subjecting them to the inferior maritime-admiralty law (commercial law / law of the water), whereby the 1st-class-American Citizens' inherent, God-given, unalienable, Constitutionallyprotected and guaranteed rights/status may not be recognized by the lower courts; Page 3 of 4.

but rather, the 1st-class-American Citizens are now being subjected to the type of inferior, statutory codes, rules and regulations described above, which is in direct contravention to the guarantees and protections the 1st-class-American Citizens enjoy under the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments), which are now regularly circumvented as direct result of the pecuniary ambition not uncharacteristic of the ultra vires, corporate-commercial acts currently inflicted upon virtually 'all' citizens now inhabiting America. However, as we now know,

neither the 14th-amendment nor its proposal has ever been lawfully nor legally adopted nor ratified. Furthermore, the Guarantee Clause in the U. S. Constitution

guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans; i.e., we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats (Article IV, Section 4). Therefore, whereas any criminal statute which may attempt to compel the performance of any ''obligation'' or ''duty'' under which there is no such Law of Liability is tantamount to slavery, involuntary servitude and extortion, it is not a question as to whether judgment should be granted to the Claimant against the Respondent in this case, insomuch as it is the Common Law, Constitutional Law, the Supreme Law of the Land, God's Law, which is intended to govern the human rights and status of all men and women equally, that is meant to prevail. Affiant does hereby and herewith formally invoke his rights and status under such Law which requires the Respondent now answer for its ultra vires actions pursuant to Affiant's demand that Respondent forthwith show Quo Warranto. Page 4 of 4.