State vs

State vs. United States citizenship

Such a letter, here slightly edited and condensed, was sent by our correspondent to his Governor of South Carolina with an affidavit, and to the sheriff as well. Readers wishing to wake up their assorted State and County officials may contact the “Cat Man” at 843-875-3597 or rorie8th@bellsouth.net . Unabashed by the ACLU, he’ll meow you a few useful legal angles.

278 Sinclair Rd.
Ninth Judicial District
Summerville, SC [29483]

Governor Mark Sanford
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12267
Columbia, SC 29211

Dear Mr. Sanford,

Would that there were merely one or two questions one might ask of you and expect a simple reply; but, because of ongoing fraud, distortion and duplicity layered, embedded and engraved upon our minds about history and “law of the land,” the missing answers just multiply. However, I shall cut these inquiries to a few. It’s hard knowing where to start, as I have been subjected to the public/government school system. Yet, to the extent that an ill-educated background permits, and hoping my private studies suffice, I shall attempt to brief you on some historical facts that have me baffled concerning citizenship, due process (before, during and after the Civil War), the Union Army’s participation in the Article V amendment process of the U.S. Constitution, Congressional (Union of Northerners) usurpation of the Article V amending process and the outright overthrow of principles well settled in our jurisprudence at that time.

Senator Doolittle from Wisconsin, quoting all the daily statements from the Senate, added: “What is said every day; the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment, and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet, and establish military power over them until they do adopt it” (Congressional Globe, Feb. 20, 1867, page 1644). This was not just talk; they did just that, and the Reconstruction Acts prove it.

State citizenship has been the proper (and, may I add, “only”) status that our forefathers possessed before that military enforcement of the “14th Amendment” upon our country. This so-called 14th amendment supposedly created a new “United States citizen” (U.S. vs. Susan B. Anthony, Van Valkenburg vs. Brown, the Slaughterhouse cases, Crosse vs. Board of Supervisors of Elections 221 A 2nd 431 1966, Twining vs. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 1908, etc.). Though the proposed amendment never complied with Article V procedures and mandates and so cannot be considered constitutionally ratified, it is forced upon us. The Utah State Supreme Court in 1968 lamented in Dyett vs. Turner that “We feel like slaves in a galley.” Neither you, nor any jurist at any level, will find military power authorized in Article V, which requires the willful votes of State legislatures and forbids the deprivation of State suffrage except where States consent. Guns pointed at the head cannot be consent, nor a surrogate government installed by military replacement of properly-elected officeholders acceptable. A public official can only be “properly” taken out (Hoke vs. Henderson, Brown et al. vs. board of Levee Commissioner, White vs. White 5 Barb NY 474, 1849, etc.).

The Courts have used a well-known escape hatch to avoid answering questions on this “amendment’s” validity. First and absolutely foremost, the attacks and invasions of the Southern States were without due process of law, so the whole problem involves a judicial question. Did the government provide due process when taking life, liberty and property from the States and the people in 1861 and thereafter? Can anyone produce evidence of a single summons, judicial hearing of any kind or Court order finding the accused States “guilty,” or that they were judged and sentenced by Congress? No, the entire taking of life, liberty and property lacked any presence or adjudication of a Court. Jeremiah Black, the Attorney General prior to those crimes, plainly stated that it would be illegal to invade States except by Court order. He further elaborated that, were the threatened States treated like enemies, they could retaliate in whatever form considered necessary, and that “…if Congress shall break up the present Union, by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquility which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their federal obligations? …then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the general government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions” (Official Opinions of Attorneys General of the United States, vol. 9, pages 516 and 526). What Jeremiah Black said would be the official opinion of the United States Government according to section 25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act. What branch of government took heed, or even gave it any rank at all? While this is strictly a due-process argument, the Court has hidden behind the fraudulent wall of this well-known escape: “It’s a political question.” Where in the history of due process can it ever be called mere opinion when due process is strictly a judicial function?

Any new meaning of due process after the United States Constitution of 1790 must go through Article V, so postwar changes have no standing (e.g., Hurtado vs. Calf. 110 U.S. 516, 1884, arrogantly stating that a grand jury would not be necessary “so long as the rest of the trial is fair”). Even when a Court alludes to doubts about the “14th Amendment” while hiding behind this wall, saying it cannot rule on the issue, I find that contradictory since the Court has made rulings concerning the validity of an amendment five times (Hollingsworth vs. Virginia, 3 Dall, 378, 1798; Hawke vs. Smith, 253 U.S. 231, 1920; Rhode Island vs. Palmer, 253 U.S.; Dillion vs. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368; and United States vs. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 1931). That negates any trust in Courts that turn around and select a timeframe and an amendment not to rule on.

Article V of the Constitution holds State power superior to Federal license. States, use it. Don’t like how the Court defines Article VI, paragraph 2? States, just put Article V into practice; clarify State authority. Don’t want the Federal government occupying ten square miles? States, put Article V to practice and give them two square feet. Do States feel like “slaves in a galley”? Then use that constitutional power and put those oars back in Federal hands! If States’ rights are null, so is the government (Kidd vs. Pearson, 247 US 75-276).

Since the “14th Amendment” did not ratify, then first and foremost there is no such thing as a United States citizen as defined in post Civil War doctrines (Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300, 302, 1855).

As a single kind of citizenship exists, i.e., that of a State, I demand protection for my God-given rights. Take note that I said nothing about constitutional rights because there are no such. The Constitution of South Carolina as adopted in 1789 and its amendments are for my protection and the only law of the land (State vs. Simmons, 2 pears SC, 761, 767, 1844). Any other statutes, codes or acts placed upon the books being labeled “laws” that contradict true law have no authority, are null and void (Calder vs. Bull 3 Dall U.S. 386, 1798; Wales vs. Stetson 2 Mass. 145; Foster vs. Essex Bank 16 Mass 245, 1819; and the famous obiter dictum by John Marshall in what is “called” a case though it was not, the famous Marbury vs. Madison. By the way, that should have been Marshall vs. Madison since it attempts to deny what Madison had proclaimed just three years prior in the 1799 Virginia Convention concerning the authority of the State Courts as the highest in the land. Wonder what happened to that opinion, made by the actual drafter of the constitution himself, and why it is not the prevailing concept today?)

In Barron vs. Baltimore 7 Pet. U.S. 243, 1833, It has been ruled and understood that our (State citizens’) rights are to be protected by the States. Some of the above cases reflect these differences of protection. I find South Carolina grossly negligent in allowing her citizens to be defrauded in a government-supported School system where nothing is taught concerning true citizenship. Why are we called U. S. citizens? Why are State citizens (not U.S. citizens, “who are citizens in the State in which they reside”) being conned into believing that they are U.S. citizens? Why has “State citizen” fallen into disuse, perhaps to disappear from history and our posterity?

South Carolina knowingly allows this false teaching that three-fourths of the States ratified the “14th Amendment,” and publishes its policies thereunder sending the message that “we are slaves in a galley.” Why hasn’t the State protected me from an encroaching, usurping and tyrannical form of government, unauthorized power trespassing upon my rights? Why are the Governor and State Legislature involved in this plot to render both State and Federal Constitutions null and void, by creating legislation and forms that reduce State citizens to subjects?

Will South Carolina forbid de facto officers from trespassing on our rights and forcing drivers licenses upon citizens who are not on the road for hire, but only private travel?

Will South Carolina cease using only the term “United States citizen” on all her voting, licenses, and other forms by adding to them the term “State citizen”? After all, what is a State without indigenous and committed citizens? Will this State introduce into textbooks the historical truths of why the “14th Amendment” never ratified?
As you can see, question follows question. I cannot ask them all, for each packs another loaded conundrum. In essence: will the State of South Carolina stand for truth?

I ask you to exercise the de jure office you hold though having come by it de facto. That “office” owes me the protections and remedies I am demanding here and not the person(s) possessing it. Because you are on record as a U.S. citizen and I find nothing that would claim otherwise, this State office is held by a foreign person. Reading Ableman vs. Booth as quoted in the Jeremiah Black opinion above, we see two distinct spheres of jurisdiction. Therefore a State Governor’s office should be held by a State citizen and not someone from another domain. Though there is no “real” United States citizen, but even understood as a fiction readily accepted by the ill-informed, that still spins out as a foreign entity; which dilemma causes conflict with, and trespasses upon, my rights. As all Federal offices were prior to the war filled by State citizens, they are now held de facto as well, unless we can determine that the people willfully and knowingly made such changes; but then the people would have attended conventions and made amendments through Article V, which they did not. The U.S. Constitution clearly is talking about State citizens. When has such a citizen occupied any of the State offices, been a President or a Congressman?

The damages caused by fraudulent teaching in public schools has severed common knowledge from the people in such measure and duration that, to be truly informed, one must leave his generational time frame and study past the public memory. The modern plenitude that overwhelms these commuting elements in people has dismantled necessary reasoning. So-called elections find few sound alternatives considered, since educational institutions have already pre-stored the present course in voters, classifying them ens legis rather than as natural persons.

A final note concerns the Law of Nations, in which Article 1 section 8 clause 10 states: “To define and punish… offenses against the Law of Nations.” It will be remembered that this was written by Emmerich de Vattel in 1758 and incorporated into our Constitution word for word, as John Jay instructed his grand juries around the circuits. Any legislation contrary to the Law of Nations goes against the Constitution and the several States. New international law supposedly accepted but contradicting Vattels Law of Nations has no binding force because no officeholder at any level is authorized to change the Law of the Land (Westervelt vs. Gregg 12 NY 209), either international or domestic. I remind you again that altering the Constitution can proceed only through Article V, as no amendment has nullified Article 1 Section 8 concerning this great part of our laws (United States vs. Smith 5 Wheat. 153, 160, 162, 1820; the Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat 1, 40-41, 1826; and United States vs. Brig Malek Abhel, 2 How. 210, 232, 1844); yet the present government violates every portion of it. Whether the importance of this is recognized by your office or not, I mention here without further elaboration the connection between this and the other problems mentioned above.

“The Constitution is certain and fixed: it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land. It is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the constitution : they owe their existence to the constitution: they derive their power from the constitution. It is their commission, and therefore all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The constitution is the work or will of the people themselves, in their original sovereign and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative or subordinate capacity: the one is the work of the Creator and the other of the creature. The constitution fixes limits to the exercise of the Legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is absolutely void.” (University of North Carolina vs. Foy 2 Howard NC 310, 1805).

Please note hereto attached affidavit giving your office the particulars of my status. It will stand in any Court of law, and can only be rebutted by overcoming evidence. If your office can prove anything to the contrary, this is my notice for you to present such evidence or accept all that is stated herein as binding truth. You should make a rebuttal either in writing or en silento. I think 30 days will be sufficient time for you to answer my questions and accept or disprove anything in the affidavit. Your silence shall be considered consent to all the facts therein.

“ I SAID THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT HAD NOT BEEN ADOPTED.” (Senator Henderson, Congressional Globe, Feb. 20, 1867, page 1644)

Joel W. Rorie

AFFIDAVIT

I have given here ample proofs that the “Law of the Land” is on my side and that I am under the State’s protection concerning all of my rights, so I believe you as Governor control that department and can issue me a letter of recognition along with an order that I may show any officer who detains or attempts to classify me as a “subject/ens legis” while charging or arresting me for practicing my right to journey without a drivers license in traveling for private purposes. This order should instruct any police officer to allow me free movement on the public roads.

I will out of courtesy make an identification card with a recent picture of myself and giving enough details to conclude my identity as a State citizen and the person bearing the document. This is so that anyone inquiring or requesting the same would be able to determine that I am the natural person possessing it.
THE FACTS

I, Joel W. Rorie, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that the following statements are true to the best of my knowledge.

1. I was educated in the public school system.

2. I was never taught by the public school system the various differences in word meanings that dealt with the law of the land.

3. I was never taught in the public school system that the “14th Amendment” failed to ratify. Instead, it instructed me that the “14th Amendment” did ratify, and, as a result, I acted against the true government of this land.

4. I was given to believe that only one type of citizenship existed in the United States of America, and as a result acted under such false teachings.

5. I am a natural born person with natural rights given to me by God Himself, and no other.

6. I have in the last few months come to know the truth about (a) the failure of the “14th Amendment” to ratify, (b) falsified definitions planted in the 1864 Webster’s Dictionary and reiterated in every subsequent edition thereof, (c) lawful words and phrases such as “due process” and “liberty” having been changed by the post Civil War Supreme Court; and, as a result, now realize my original status.

7. I am not a United States citizen as defined in post Civil War doctrines.

8. I am a citizen of the State of South Carolina established in 1789.

9. I have accepted many contracts relating to the United States Government because of false teachings that purposely hid the facts about my status, and, as a result, ignorantly entered into various of those commitments.

10. I am presently engaged in research that has revealed many truths heretofore hidden from me by the public school system, as a result of which studies my ignorance has come to an end. Lately aware of my status as a freeman I hereby denounce all contracts with this new military government that defrauds people into believing it a legal entity deriving lawful authority from the organic United States and South Carolina State Constitutions.

11. I am a State citizen hereby proclaiming myself a South Carolinian by right and status.

12. When repeating words or phrases such as (but not limited to) due process, United States, Federal, Congress, citizen, State, liberty, jury, E Pluribus Unum, Union, person, etc., unless clarified by myself otherwise I use and read them off documents in their true meanings as defined before the Civil War.

13. I am a White male Christian born in one of the several States on August the 8th, 1954.

14. I believe the Bible is the Supreme Law of the Land.

15. I believe natural laws come under Divine Law.

16. I believe that human laws also known as civil laws such as the Law of Nations (written by Emmerich de Vattel), United States Constitution, and the Constitutions of the several States all fall under the authority of both the Bible and of Natural Law.

17. I pledge allegiance to the original government established by the U.S. Constitution in 1789 and all amendments thereto passed strictly in compliance with Article V as sole authority for refining that charter, faith therefore in the original constitution and amendments 1 through 12 only, since I can find no other amendment having properly passed the mandates of Article V.

18. I am a direct descendant of those people mentioned in the preamble of the United States Constitution, the same having ratified it in 1789.

Further, affiant saith not.

Dated this _____ day of ___________________, ______

Respectfully Submitted,

_________________________________ Joel W. Rorie, in propria persona, sui Juris.

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established (II Corinthians 13:1).

Witnessed The signature above________________________________dated_____________