Frivolous Subject: 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) includes people born or naturalized in the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state – Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM)

FALSE STATEMENT:

8 U.S.C. 1401(a) includes people born within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state:

8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

The above is the same language as that found in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Fourteenth Amendment

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.

People born in federal territories like Puerto Rico are covered elsewhere in Title 8 and NOT 8 U.S.C. 1401. 8 U.S.C. 1401 is therefore unnecessary since territories like Puerto Rico are covered in 8 U.S.C. 1402.

REBUTTAL:

The language above says “subject to the jurisdiction” just like the Fourteenth Amendment, so they look the same, but they are NOT. Title 8 us a SUBSTITUTE for the constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment that limits itself to areas within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, including:

Federal territories and possessions.
Federal enclaves.
Indian country.

This subject is EXTREMELY important because the income tax is imposed on “citizens and residents of the United States” in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(a). These “citizens” are defined in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) as “citizens” and NOT “citizens of the United States”, and they are indicated to be listed in 8 U.S.C. 1401-1459. These sections of Title 8 NOWHERE include Fourteenth Amendment citizens. See:

COPILOT: WHICH “citizen” in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1?, SEDM
https://sedm.org/copilot-which-citizen-in-26-c-f-r-1-1-1/

According to the D.C. Circuit Court and Microsoft Copilot, however, 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) covers people born in Indian country and federal enclaves but not within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state:

1. The D.C. Circuit Court held on this subject:

Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE!], and not a constitutional, right. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. While longstanding practice is not sufficient to demonstrate constitutionality, such a practice requires special scrutiny before being set aside.

[Tuaua v. U.S.A, 951 F.Supp.2d. 88 (2013)]

Notice the phrase:

“If the Citizenship Clause guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. “

Why would they be unnecessary? Because th Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause covers that scenario.

2. We also asked Microsoft Copilot about this:

QUESTION:

Would people born in a federal enclave fall under 8 U.S.C. 1401(a)?

COPILOT ANSWER:

Certainly! Let’s explore whether people born in a federal enclave would fall under 8 U.S.C. 1401(a).

8 U.S.C. 1401(a) outlines the criteria for individuals who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. However, it does not explicitly mention federal enclaves. Let’s break down the scenarios:

Person Born in a Federal Enclave within the United States:
- Federal enclaves are areas within the United States that are under federal jurisdiction (such as military bases, federal buildings, or other federal properties).
- Generally, individuals born in federal enclaves are considered to be born within the United States for legal purposes.
- Therefore, it is likely that people born in federal enclaves would fall under 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) if they meet the other criteria specified in the law (e.g., subject to U.S. jurisdiction).

However, for precise legal interpretations, it is advisable to consult legal experts or official government resources. The application of 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) can vary based on specific circumstances and legal precedents.

CONCLUSION:

Further proof is found in the fact that people born in territories and possessions cannot vote in federal election. If they were equivalent to Fourteenth Amendment citizens, this restriction would not apply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_voting_rights_in_Puerto_Rico

Show us even ONE case where 8 USC 1401(a) is invoked in determining the citizenship of someone born in the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state and therefore “subject to THE jurisdiction” rather than “subject to ITS jurisdiction”. 20 years later, we’re still looking for that proof. A good starting place is:

1. The annotated version of 8 USC 1401:

https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/USCitizen-8USCA1401-20090918.pdf

2. The definition of “U.S. citizen”:

Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “U.S. citizen”
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/USCitizen.htm

We asked COPILOT to find even ONE CASE where 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) was used to determine the citizenship status of someone born within the Exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state. It couldn’t find a SINGLE case that accurately did that. It LIED to us by saying that United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) does so, but that case in fact DOES NOT. That case actually agrees with us here, by talking about the Indian Country we mention above as follows, in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment:

the meaning of those words was, “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;” that by the Constitution, as originally established, “Indians not taxed” were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives in Congress and direct taxes were apportioned among the 681*681 several States, and Congress was empowered to regulate commerce, not only “with foreign nations,” and among the several States, but “with the Indian tribes;” that the Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States, but were alien nations, distinct political communities, the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States; that the alien and dependent condition of the members of one of those tribes could not be put off at their own will, without the action or assent of the United States; and that they were never deemed citizens, except when naturalized, collectively or individually, under explicit provisions of a treaty, or of an act of Congress; and, therefore, that “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more `born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.” And it was observed that the language used, in defining citizenship, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, was “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 112 U.S. 99-103.

[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]

The above case also DIRECTLY pitted an act of Congress against the Fourteenth Amendment and concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment was superior and that no act that conflicted with it could supersede or even control it. The constitution is Congress’ delegation order and Congressional legislation cannot supersede it:

The acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, the earliest of which was passed some fourteen years after the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, cannot control its meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions. And the right of the United States, as exercised by and under those acts, to exclude or to expel from the country persons of the Chinese race, born in China, and continuing to be subjects of the Emperor of China, though having acquired a commercial domicil in the United States, has been upheld by this court, for reasons applicable to all aliens alike, and inapplicable to citizens, of whatever race or color. Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698; Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228.

[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]

To summarize:

1. Domicile always determines civil personal jurisdiction.

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf

2. Domicile is always geographical.

3. The separation of powers separates the two mutually exclusive geographies.

Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf

4. The only thing that interconnects the two, even in the case of subject matter jurisdiction, is GOVERNMENT PROPERTY under Constitution Article 4:3:2.

5. Everything falling into subject matter jurisdiction under Constitution Article 1:8 is PROPERTY jurisdiction, not PERSONAL jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction only comes from domicile. Federal offices are included in such property.

6. PROPERTY jurisdiction includes offices and statuses that Congress creates that you voluntarily accept. All the money laundering statutes RELY on the fact that you are using this property, namely, an office or status that it calls “trade or business”. Here is exhaustive proof of that:

Money Laundering Enforcement Scam, Form #05.044
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyLaunderingScam.pdf

The constitution is a trust. Public officers manage the community property of that trust and NOTHING MORE civilly. If you aren’t using that property, you are legislatively foreign.