All of these cases are great, but what court would actually recognize them
and apply real law to a man or woman? The courts are as corrupt as the
rest of this planet.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 1:13 PM NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
*“The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things, not
privileged that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers
resident therein; not only to those who are naturalized, and to those who
are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of
permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All
strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within
his territory and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that
protection.”* Carlisle v United States 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873)
*“Let a State be considered as subordinate to the People: But let
everything else be subordinate to the State.” *Chisholm v Georgia 2 US
419 at 455
*"The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from
a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special
class of citizen created by Congress."* U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829
(1873)
