Offer of Proof that two distinct status of citizenship exist

2. William Duff alleges there are two distinct status of citizen in this American society and that plaintiff’s status is as defined in his comes now section ,above, and defined as; the Sovereign Citizen. Are there two distinct status of citizen in America? Let’s answer that question;

U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:

"A person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other."

"an individual can be a Citizen of one of the several States without being a citizen of the United States," (U.S. v. Anthony), or, "a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a State.” U.S. v. Cruikshank, (1875))

U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2 guarantees "privileges and immunities" to Citizens of each state. K Tashiro v. Jordan 256 P 545, was later affirmed by US Supreme Court in 278 US 123: "There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State"

The Supreme Court in Colgate v. Harvey 296 US 404, 429 clarified that rights of state citizenship are in contradistinction to the rights of US citizenship: "The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other ..."

3. It is, therefore, self evident there are two distinct status of citizen within America as related by the U.S. Supreme Court in Cruikshank, Tashiro, Colgate, Anthony above quoted, and many others such as Hale v Henkel, Chisholm v Georgia etc. That being now a material fact, what is the difference between a citizen of the United States and a State Citizen? Lets answer that question;

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY).

"Under our system the people, who were there (in England) called subjects are here the Sovereign ... their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of a monarch. The citizen here (in America) knows no person, however in years to those in power, or however powerful himself to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him…" United States vs. Lee 106 U.S. 196 at 208

United States v. 24 Federal Cases 829,830 (1873): "The rights of Citizens of the States, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment and are fully guaranteed by other provisions."

"The words "People of the United States" and "Citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body that, according to our Republican institutions form the sovereignty ... they are what we familiarly call the "Sovereign people", and every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of the sovereignty..." Wong Kim Ark. P. 914, quoting Dred Scott vs. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 19 How 577. See also: Hancock vs. Carry Alcorn Mining Co., Inc., Ky., 503 S. W. 2 d 710 Kentucky Constitution section 4; Commonwealth Ex Rel. Hancock vs. Paxton Kentucky, 516 S. W. 2 d page 867(2) clause 3

4. It is now self evident and material as related by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lansing, US v Lee, US v 24 fed cases, Dred Scott and many other cases on the subject that State Citizenship possesses the sovereign prerogative as once possessed by the King of England and are the sovereign in America, both individually and collectively. By contrast the United States Citizen is;

Amendment XIV

Section 1. 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.

"A person may be a citizen of the United States, and not a citizen of any particular state. This is the condition of citizens residing in the District of Columbia and in the territories of the United States or who have taken up a residence abroad." Prentiss v. Brennan Fed.Cas.No. 11,385, 2 Blatchf.

5. From the declaration in section 1 of the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, it is clear, if not material fact, that the US citizen status of citizenship was created by concurring acts of the Congress and of the Legislatures of the States by granting an additional enumerated power to the congress to create and regulate this new status of citizen by and through amendment XIV. It is further apparent to plaintiff, if not this court, that the Missouri Constitution adopted in 1875 and later in 1945 are recognition by the State of said amendment and regulation of said U.S. citizen. It is further apparent to anyone of average intelligence that the State Legislatures and the Federal Congress are creations of the sovereign citizens (state citizens) as is recognizable by the source statements of the state and federal constitutions, i.e. “We the People do ordain and establish” and “We, the people of Missouri,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, do mutually agree to form and establish a free and independent republic, by the name of "The State of Missouri," and for the government thereof do ordain and establish this constitution.” , And it is material that said amendments and constitutions and the laws arising from them do not comprehend the sovereign citizen but recognizing the State Constitution of 1875 and laws arising there from enjoy far more stealth on the subject than do the federal documents doesn’t alter their intent and purpose.

Obviously, there is a clear distinction between the two status’ of citizenship. The nature of the State Citizen being in possession of sovereign prerogative ordaining and establishing (creating) the State and Federal Governments, and the nature of the United States citizen being a creation of said State and Federal Governments. The State Citizen (sovereign) created all government while the US citizen was created by those governments.

6. The question of distinction is therefore one of possession of birthright to sovereign prerogative. Does the United States citizen possess sovereign prerogative such as does the State Citizen? The Supreme Court is silent on the subject of sovereignty being in the possession of the United States Citizen however, other cases provide light on this subject, but first what does sovereignty mean as applied to the state citizen;

The following definition of sovereignty is from Bouvier's 14th edition Law Dictionary (quoting from 4 Wheat, 402). "It has been justly thought a matter of importance to determine from what source the United States derives its authority... the question here proposed is whether our bond of union is a compact entered into by the states, or whether the Constitution is an organic law established by the People. To this we answer: We The People ... ordain and establish this Constitution" ... the government of the state had only delegated power (from the People) and even if they had an inclination, they had no authority to transfer the authority of the Sovereign People. The people in their capacity as Sovereigns made and adopted the Constitution; and it binds the state governments without the state's consent. The United States, as a whole, therefore, emanates from the People and not from the states, and the Constitution and laws of the states whether made before or since the adoption of that Constitution of the United States, are subordinate to the United States Constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it. The people are the Fountain of sovereignty. The whole was originally with them as their own. The state governments are but trustees acting under a derived authority, and had no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original Fountain, might take away what they have lent and entrust to whom they please. They have the whole title and as absolute proprietors have the right of using or abusing. – jus utendi et abutendi. It is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case that a Sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and his own conscience … There is no authority above a Sovereign to which an appeal can be made. "4 Wheat, 402 (Bouvier’s 14th edition Law Dictionary: “Sovereignty”)

"The people, or the Sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind at the King nor the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the king, the former Sovereign... It is a maxim of the common law that when an act of parliament is made for the public good, the advancement of religion and Justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, the king shall be bound by such an act, though not named; but when a statute is General, and any prerogative rights, title or interest would be divested or taken from the king (or the people) in such case he shall not be bound. "the People vs. Herkimer 15 American Decisions 379, 4 Cowen (NY 345, 348 (1825))

"Since in common usage, the term person does not include a Sovereign, statutes not implying the phrases are ordinarily construed to exclude it."1 U.S.C.S. 1, n 12, United States vs. Fox 94 U.S. 315

Authors Note: Here it is demonstrated as material that the government, including federal and state, do not possess sovereignty but only sovereign powers granted by “The People” (the sovereigns) who did not cede said sovereignty to government. It is a material fact, then, that Government had no sovereignty to bestow on the US citizen therefore, the distinction between the two statuses is one of sovereign prerogative possessed by the State Citizen (one of the “People”, “We the People”) and not possessed by the United States citizen (creatures of government enactments).

7. Does the US citizen possess sovereign prerogative rights:

... citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted. ... citizens of the United States** ... were also not thought of; but in any event a citizen of the United States**, who is not a citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal] Constitution. [Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914] [emphasis added

Persons are devided by law into natural and artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called "corporations" or "bodies politic". 1 Bl. Comm. 123. ..... Blacks Law Dictionary 1st Edition 1891

Amendment XIV designates a new class of citizen (see previous definition of artificial persons);

Section 1. 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In Powell v. U.S. 109 F2d 147, 149 (1940) the court determined what the term `citizen' means in federal statutes. Notice that the term `citizen,' when used in federal laws, excludes State citizens: "... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."

Your U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2 guarantees "privileges and immunities" to Citizens of each state. K Tashiro v. Jordan 256 P 545, was later affirmed by US Supreme Court in 278 US 123: "There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State"

The Supreme Court cases just above demonstrate that U.S. citizens are natural persons possessed of artificial citizenship status created by the States and the Congress for the purposes of society and government, which are called "corporations" or "bodies politic". And, that the sovereign citizen is not comprehended in or by enactments respecting the United States citizen. The U.S. citizen does not enjoy the privilege and immunity possessed by the sovereign citizen because a citizenship status created by government, and law, is not endowed by the creator of nature and because the Congress and the State Legislatures possessed no sovereignty with which to bestow same on natural persons who do not possess the birthright of sovereignty.

8. The question then arises respecting the nature of the sovereign citizen; Can government presume the sovereign citizen to also be a United States citizen without his consent? Let’s see what the Courts say on this subject;

"In the United States the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship." Afroyim vs. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

"Under our form of government, the Legislature is not supreme. It is only one of the organs of that absolute sovereignty which resides in the whole body of the people; like other bodies of the government, it can only exercise such powers as has been delegated to it, and when it steps beyond that boundary, its acts . . . Are utterly void. " Billings vs. Hall, 7 CA 1 (Court of Appeals, U.S.)

"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." Julliard vs. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421

“The law subscribes to the king (in America, the people) the attribute of sovereignty; he is sovereign and independent within his own Dominion; and owes no kind of subjection to any other potentate upon earth. Hence, it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him; for all jurisdiction implies supremacy of power. "Chisholm vs. Georgia 2 Dall. 419,458

"Since in common usage, the term person does not include a Sovereign, statutes not implying the phrases are ordinarily construed to exclude it."1 U.S.C.S. 1, n 12, United States vs. Fox 94 U.S. 315

"Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must be done voluntarily, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of relevant circumstances and consequences." Brady v US, 397 US 742

“Under the well-settled doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions," the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the property sought has little or no relationship to the benefit.” Dolan v City of Tigard, 512 US 374

It is therefore apparent if not material that the governments cannot compel a sovereign citizen to be the U.S citizen or even to adhere to the same rules as the U.S. citizen. Such can only be accomplished by the express consent of the sovereign.

9. All that being now material the final question must be; Is plaintiff such a sovereign citizen?

The answer must, by now, be self evident to this court. Plaintiff has filed an affidavit of truth with this court and is on file in this case. Plaintiff was born and has lived his 57 years right here within Missouri and as such is in possession of the birthright. As is referenced in said affidavit, plaintiff, has rescinded all powers of appointment, admissions and contracts implied in law and in fact that bound him to obey these oppressive laws, that body of laws arising out of the 14^th amendment, by his consent. All were rescinded due to their being replete with disinformation, misinformation, deceit, coercion, fraud and bad faith rendering all such contracts and admissions to contracts void ab initio from their inception. No one has the standing to challenge plaintiff’s declaration as to his sovereign birthright.

Sovereignty has fairly been established through the Supreme Court decisions heretofore cited in that the individual people in possession of the birthright protected by the original constitutions are the sovereign. Collectively, they make up the sovereignty of the people. And this plaintiff has proven herein to a certainty that he is such a citizen. This fact, being material to this action as plaintiff’s cause of action which is predicated on the allegation that defendants, et al, exceeded their granted power in numerous ways and trespassed into the domain of this Sovereign Plaintiff without his consent, it is therefore necessary for the court to distinguish between the powers granted to government by the consent of the people and those retained by the people. It is within this analysis where clarity is given to the nature of the harm alleged by plaintiff to have been committed by defendants, et al.

The people consented to that which is written in the state and the federal constitutions and retained for themselves all that is not included, but what is most important is; what did the people retain for themselves? Of course, throughout the articles of the constitutions are references to limitations on granted powers. For the purpose of this offer of proof it should be enough to demonstrate both the federal and state constitutions prohibit government from searching and seizing anyone’s person or property without a warrant, due process of law…… and probable cause that a crime is or has been committed. Remembering that a crime was a common law crime and included intentional harms against persons or property and did not comprehend the contemporary application of the word crime as being the breaking of any rule the legislature or ordinance the municipality makes. The people did not consent to anything more that what is contained in the constitutions.

10. SUMMARY;

The material facts established heretofore are: State Citizens are distinctly different from US citizens in the eyes of the law; State citizens possess sovereign prerogative rights; US citizens do not possess either sovereignty or sovereign prerogative rights; The State does not possess sovereignty itself but only sovereign powers granted to it by the people which represent a kind of sovereignty it exercises over the national government but none but that expressly bestowed by compact over the people; Government can not bestow that which it does not have on what it creates; and, Government can not presume the sovereign citizen to be a United States citizen unless it can also demonstrate such citizen has expressly consented thereto; That I, William Duff am one such sovereign citizen; and finally, laws and due process that courts apply to the sovereign citizen must comprehend and be respectful of those prerogative rights not granted to governments and that are protected by said constitutions. By contrast, the U.S. citizen is subject to that due process extended to them and defined by the laws of the government that created their status.

As this Citizen has herein proven and declared by affidavit, filed in this and other Jackson County court actions, that he is the Sovereign Citizen, as defined and distinguished from a United States citizen above, and is in full possession of his sovereign prerogative herein notices this court that he enjoys sovereign immunity from every action of the legislature, Executive and Judicial branch of the Missouri Government, it’s subdivisions, agencies and agents, where intentional harm to another is not associated or where he has not consented or where the action diminishes his prerogative rights without his consent.

As such, it is necessary for the court to clearly and on the record, declare which “Citizen” plaintiff is and what due process and laws are applicable and identify which of these elements the court thinks it is addressing so that the appropriate due process and application of law will be secured. This determination is even more necessary in the instant case as the judiciary of Missouri has apparently not cognized one of the people to be that sovereign citizen in any cases for the past 50 + years, in other cases this plaintiff has been a party where this question has been ignored, and due to a determination made by this judge to ignore plaintiff’s collateral attack on the void judgment this case arises from while ordering process from a case this action was seeking a collateral attack on the void judgment thereof, be imposed without hearing which is yet another failure on the part of the Missouri judiciary to cognize a Missouri Citizen to be the sovereign and to respect that fact. All such cases related to sovereign and/or natural rights claims during this period have been weighed, measured and decided pursuant to the 14^th amendment due process and privilege and immunities clauses as comprehended by the current Missouri constitution and laws of Missouri. As such, a reasonable man would conclude the State of Missouri is engaged in an effort to ignore, if not destroy (bring about the genocide of), the rights of the sovereign state citizen using the judiciary to deny people access to the sovereign protections. No further obfuscation of this matter can or will be allowed where the question herein proven is not controlling on the rule of decision for this court. This sovereign Citizen must be protected by this judiciary in all the privileges and immunities inherent in his sovereign prerogative rights.

Wherefore, William Duff, recognizing that the word “law” describes two separate and distinct bodies of “law” as above referenced, and that this fact is exculpatory in nature, moves this court to convene an evidentiary hearing to determine exactly which “law” is or is not applicable in this case without further delay and for all other protections this court can and should provide upon the outcome thereof.

Respectfully Submitted;

William D Duff, sovereign citizen, acting sui juris