For all of those followers of the debate on the Right to Keep
and Bear arms, I have news for you. You don't have any such right
as far as the government is concerned. You had that right before
you contracted it away, but not now. What contract? Do you have a
driver's license? Do you have a Social Security number? Do you use
Federal Reserve Notes without protest? Have you ever filled out a
Form 1040? Do you accept mail marked with a zip code? Are you
registered to vote? Are you a resident of The State of __? Are you 
a US citizen? Did you answer yes to any of the questions listed 
above? Then forget about the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't apply to you 
(neither do any of the other amendments, for that matter.) The 
government can ban and confiscate your guns (and anything else they 
want to), it's 100% legal and the Supreme Court will be happy to 
silently stand by while they do it. Don't believe it? Read on.

     The following is a letter that I faxed to Wayne LaPierre. I
came into possession of the info I relate in the letter a few
weeks ago and I believe it to be the key to the biggest con/scam
ever pulled off on a nation in history. I also believe this
information is the key to why Americans are going to continue to
lose what few gun rights they think they have now. [Note: I have
yet to receive an acknowledgement, much less a reply.]
     What I attempted to explain in the letter is that due to a
subtle manipulation of the courts and a subtle change in the
meaning of American "citizenship" enabled by the 14th Amendment,
virtually 100% of the American people are not protected by the
Constitution. What I have learned is that every American that is
a "US citizen" or claims to be a "resident" of their state has in
fact contracted to be a slave to whom the Constitution does not
apply. After considerable study, I do not think that this is just
another half-baked conspiracy theory, or more of the tired, old,
B.S. concocted by dim-witted, neo-nazi bigots. I am convinced
that what the government has managed to do is to trick Americans
into waiving their Constitutional rights by commercial contract
and since it appears to me that all of our courts are operating
under a bastardized form of Admiralty Jurisdiction (commercial
contract law with criminal penalties- which would only apply when
there was a valid international contract involved, rather than
the Common Law), the Constitution and its Second Amendment simply
does not apply!
     I came upon reams of documentation hidden on little known
computer bulletin boards all coming from different angles that
lead to the same conclusion. The Constitution has not been in
effect since 1933 and all that is left of American freedom is a
charade that is rapidly deteriorating. I believe that unless
someone addresses this information NOW, we are doomed as a
nation.
     It's very difficult to explain 3 weeks of reading in a 4
page letter but I can't overemphasize that I think this is the
root cause of attempts at gun control and unless something is
done now, we are in *BIG TROUBLE*. 
     Conventional attempts to stop gun control are not working
and will not ever work because the Constitution and the 2nd
Amendment simply doesn't apply to legislative subjects of
Washington, D.C. - and that is what all Americans have been
tricked by commercial contract into being. Congress can do
whatever they want (or whatever they're told...) and the Supreme
Court will not review what amounts to a perfectly valid and
legally binding commercial contract that Americans don't, and
won't, even know exists until we're all on our way to the
"resettlement camps"! There were a few people that knew what
really happened at the end of the train ride and they tried to
tell people about it. I'd like to think that in some small way I
might be making a similar effort.

                                        Mr. Gian A. Fazio
                                        **********************
                                        *******************
                                        August 29, 1994
          

Mr. Wayne LaPierre
National Rifle Association
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Va. 22030


Mr. LaPierre:

     I would like to bring to your attention a few facts that may
help explain why the NRA keeps losing and why it will continue to
keep losing. The NRA is fond of mentioning the 2nd Amendment and
how it is supposed to guarantee the people the right to keep and
bear arms. What most people don't know is that for 99 44/100% of
the population, the Constitution *does not apply* - it most
certainly has not been in effect since at least 1933 and
therefore no matter what you or anyone else does, any law that
Congress wants to pass *will* be passed and the Supreme Court
will refuse to review any challenges to them. *You are fighting a
battle that you are predestined and doomed to lose unless you
change your tactics and here is why*.

     Prior to the "adoption" of the 14th Amendment there existed
one class of citizen - i.e., "Citizens (note capitalization) of
the Several States" as mentioned in the Constitution. After the
14th Amendment, there existed the original "Citizens" and a newly
created class of people referred to as "U.S. citizens" (again,
note capitalization.) The difference between a "Citizen of the
Several States" and a "U.S. citizen" (or anyone claiming "U.S.
citizenship") is that the latter class of people are deemed to
have been born in, naturalized in, or to have claimed "residency"
in Washington, D.C. or one of the Territories (such as Guam, the
Marshal Islands, etc.) and have therefore requested that the
privileges granted by Congress to "citizens or residents of the
U.S." be extended to them.

     Washington, D.C. and the Territories are legislative
districts that are subject only to Congressionally defined
municipal law which guarantees certain "privileges" rather than
"rights" and are areas where *the Constitution is not
applicable*[1]. This mechanism of extending "U.S. citizenship" to
anyone who desired it was the method used whereby former slaves
could be granted _privileges_ previously unavailable to them
because Constitutionally protected _rights_ could be enjoyed only
by pre-existing Citizens of the Several States. While on the
surface it would appear that this was done in attempt to insure
freedom and justice for all, it was in fact a tool that has been
used to enslave us all.

     The present day net effect of all of this is that virtually
every individual born in any of the 50 states of America has been
duped into admitting "U.S. citizenship" -under penalty of
perjury- by the clever insertion of the question "Are you a U.S.
citizen?" on various government forms and applications. The list
of such government forms and applications is endless including an
interesting variation of that question included on a Form 4473.

     Anyone claiming "U.S. citizenship," or that they are a
"resident" of the U.S., or that they are a "resident" of the
state in which they are domiciled, is unwittingly admitting that
under the 14th Amendment they are waiving their Constitutionally
guaranteed rights as a state Citizen in favor of Congressionally
granted privileges subject to the whim of Congress because in
reality, they are claiming to be "citizens" or "residents" of
Washington, D.C. and are therefore subject to its municipal law.
For the sake of brevity, I have omitted countless pages of court
cites and documentation to back up this assertion but I can
assure you that it is true and if you would like further
documentary evidence, I will be happy to provide it to you.

     In addition, you should also be aware that in a series of
Executive orders issued in 1933 by FDR[2], the federal United
States was declared bankrupt and in default on its loans owed to
foreign banks. In the 1938 Supreme Court case Erie vs. Tompkins
it was decided that there would be no more Common Law at the
federal level[3]. As a result of this, and the fact that the U.S.
government and all "U.S. citizens" were now a party to the debt
incurred by the government in Washington, what used to be U.S.
Public Law was blended with International Maritime Law, otherwise
known as Admiralty Law or the Law Merchant. The Public Law thus
became known as Public Policy Statutes under a fabricated
"Statutory Jurisdiction." This translates to the effect that all
14th Amendment Americans, and what they think are their
possessions, are wholly owned by international creditors and that
all federal, state, and local laws that demand "specific
performance" with associated criminal penalties for non-
compliance are purely commercial contractual agreements that
those Americans have unwittingly agreed to abide by. Our courts
are acting as Receivers for the bankrupt U.S. Government. All of
those government forms and applications are, (because of the
mutation of our courts from Common Law courts to Admiralty Courts
by another name), commercial contracts with criminal penalties,
not Public Law. They do not apply to Citizens of the Several
States (those people who have renounced all contractual
agreements with the government and who have declared themselves
to be state Citizens) but these individuals are few and far in
between. *They are however, the only Citizens to whom the
Constitution still applies*[4].

     The point of this discussion is that gun control laws are
laws based on commercial contractual agreements between Congress
and an unwitting citizenry that the citizens are bound to abide
by. The Supreme Court need not rule on the terms of a commercial
contract whose terms are quite clear to them even though the fact
that a contract exists at all is unknown to all but a few. They
will ultimately look at any challenge to an outright ban on any
firearms as a perfectly binding commercial contract on "U.S.
citizens" and simply refuse to rule on it.

     I believe our only hope of reversing the tide of gun control
in America would involve a case where a Sovereign State Citizen
manufactures and sells a firearm (such as a machinegun, where an
attempt was made to pay the tax, or a semi-auto after they were
banned from production and sale to the public) where the
Citizen-Manufacturer and the Citizen-Buyer would normally be
prohibited from engaging in those activities by federal laws that
do not apply to them by virtue of their Sovereign Citizen status.
This type of case would be extremely difficult for the Supreme
Court to ignore in as much as they would be put in the position
of having to actually rule on the Constitutional issues involved
rather than the validity of a commercial contract upon which all
existing gun laws now rest.

     At the present time, Congress may and will enact as many gun
laws as they deem they are able to get away with without causing
civil unrest because they have the power to change the terms of
the commercial contract that "U.S. citizens" have agreed to abide
by. All attempts to thwart such legislation are doomed to failure
because they know that the terms of the contract are clear and
concrete, and that the Supreme Court will not rule on a
commercial contract where there is really nothing to debate.
Schumer et al., will win by default and the Supreme Court will
let them. The issue must be forced where it involves individuals
to whom the Constitution actually applies before they will rule
on the issue. 

     You must note however, that the fact that two distinctly
different classes of citizenship exist and that Americans have
_volunteered_ to be a party to a commercial contract that they
didn't know existed is *"THE BIG SECRET"* and as such is the
basis for enacting and enforcing all federal, state, and local
laws that require "specific performance" such as the *income
tax*, among others! Congress, the Supreme Court, the entire
judicial system, all law enforcement entities, and the President
would treat the threat of exposing that secret as tantamount to
threatening to rape, slice, and dice their mothers. If you really
want to do something effective to minimize the cancerous growth
of gun control (and value your country more than your life)
threaten a few well-placed congressmen and senators with exposing
the scam they have used for 100+ years to enscrew the American
people unless they change the gun laws.

     If you have any doubt as to the veracity of what I am
relating to you, you might consider running this by your
attorneys. Should you get a very professional and curt dismissal
of the points raised here, remember that lawyers wrote the laws
that got us here, not all of them are aware of the secret, and in
any event, that they are officers of the court and are therefore
bound to keep the secret. A patriotic, honest lawyer will tell
you it's true-but not on the record. If you are already one of
the few who are privy to the secret and you don't have the nerve
to use it or are helping Congress supply the circuses to go along
with the bread they already Dole out, then you're no better than
Schumer and may you rot in hell for eternity. For the sake of
future generations of America and the world, I hope not and pray
that you might look into what I've told you and use it to save
the 2nd Amendment so that we might save America.
     I believe you are an honest man and that is why I took the
time to write. All Americans are sliding into the abyss of a new
dark age and only the bold, daring, and determined can save us
from falling into its depths. Be one of those men. Look into what
I've related to you. Let Schumer be impaled on the bloody stakes
of his own game.
     If you or your attorneys want any additional documentation,
please feel free to contact me.


                              With explicit reservation of 
                              all of my rights and without
                              prejudice U.C.C. 1-207,


[1] See American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit Co., (1909) 213 U.S.
347; U.S. v. Spear, (1949) 338 U.S. 217; N.Y. Central R.R. Co. v.
Chisholm, (1925) 268 U.S. 29.
     Another such case is Downes vs Bidwell in which the
dissenting Judge points out the evil of such a unlawful decision. 
And further supported by "the Insular Cases" 15 Harvard Law
Review 169, 281.

     "The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in
arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially
or practically two national governments;  one to be maintained
under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to
be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that
instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the
earth are accustomed to exercise.
     I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced
should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a
radical and mischievous change in our system of government will
be the result.  We will, in that event, pass from the era of
constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written
constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.
     It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of
a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds
lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence.  No higher duty
rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent
all violation of the principles of the constitution."
     [Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

Supreme Court ruled for the special interest of Congress
that District of Columbia and it's territories are not governed
by nor subject to the Constitution of the United States.
     "...[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or
by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of
Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution
...In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same
constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the
United States. ...And in general the guarantees of the
Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of
executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our
insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the
exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the
United States, has made those guarantees applicable.
[Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
Another such case is Downes vs Bidwell in which the Dissenting
Judge points out the evil of such a unlawful decision. And
further supported by "the Insular Cases" 15 Harvard Law Review
169, 281.

     There has been created a fictional Federal "state within a
state" Howard v. Commissioners of Sinking Fund, 344 U.S. 624, 73
S.Ct. 465, 476; Schwartz v. O'Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A.2d.
621, 625, 375 Pa. 440.

[2] United States declared bankrupt by President Roosevelt
Executive Orders 6673, 6102, 6111 and by 6260. The United States
bankruptcy was confirmed by Congress on June 5, 1933 in the
Congressional Record, pp.4055- 4058.

[3]  "There is no Federal Common Law, and Congress has no power
to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a State,
whether they be local or general in their nature, be they
commercial law or a part of the law or torts." (See: Erie
Railroad Co. vs Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed 1188)

[4] These people *do* exist. Their status has been recognized by
the courts. I have spoken to several of them personally.

*****************************************************************
For those who dismiss these arguments out of hand without doing
any of the research I've done, I have nothing to say but don't
get any of that sand in your eyes while you're filling out that
1040. For those with an open mind, don't take my word for it, do
the reading yourself. The following material is suggested:

Transcriptions of tapes by Howard Freeman
     (short on cites and slightly anecdotal, but a good               
     backgrounder to get you started)

The Federal Zone by Mitch Modeleski
     (by far, the most complete and documented text on the                     
     subject of dual citizenship in America and how "Federal Areas" 
     or "zones" have been created and used that I've seen so far-must
     reading for the informed American- Version 5.O is the                 
     latest - 500+ pages)

Which One Are You? by The Informer
     (also excellent reading-appears on the bbs's as UNKNOWN.ZIP
      - badly ocr'd but readable - 200+ pages)

Hidden Contracts by George Mercier
     (don't be put off by the religious flavor of certain             
     passages, it's worth weeding through them- 700+ pages)

The Foundation Series

The Buck Act

Here's a few sources for this stuff:

The Patriot BBS -                  1-818-888-9882
Sovereignty Lies in the People     1-916-589-4620
Sovereignty Workshop               1-818-762-1288
Softwarehouse                      1-813-531-3662
Excelsior BBS                      1-813-596-5372
Mike's Freedom Voice               1-602-832-4479

This info is all there- all you have to do is read it.
If anyone wants to argue specific points in the research
material, I'll be happy to engage them on those points. Those 
that are inclined to argue without reading these materials first,
spare me and yourself the trouble of writing. Uninformed, 
smart-assed replies are cheap, easy, and I can do without them. 
Reading 1000+ pages of small print, case law, legal cites, IRS code, 
etc. takes a little doing. If you haven't read every bit of this 
stuff -in its entirety- you aren't qualified to dismiss it.
Period ->.
*******************************************************************

A few samples of case law cites follow:

On Admiralty Law

     "The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded.
. . .", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, 
in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury is
merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, 
p. 432. "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to 
be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 
1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. "A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable 
principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. 

On the term "United States"

   The word United States is a metaphor, Conrad S.S. Co. v.
Mellon 262 U.S. 100, 122 

IRC 26 USC 865 (g) UNITED STATES RESIDENT. - For purposes of this
section - (1) In General - Except as otherwise provided in the
subjection - (a) UNITED STATES RESIDENT, - The united states
"United states resident means - (i) any individual who has a tax
home (as defined in section 911 (d) (3) in the United States, and
(ii) any corporation, partnership, trust, or estate which is in
the United States person (as defined in section 7701 (a) (30)).
(B) NONRESIDENT - The term "nonresident" means any person
other than a United States resident."

     "Governments are corporations." Perthallow v. Doane, 3 Dall
55; Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. (1943) 318 US 363.

     "The term [United States] has several meanings. It may be
merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous
to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, it may
designate territory over which the sovereignty of the United
States extends, or it may be the collective name of the States
which are united by and under the Constitution."  Hooven &
Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652.

     "With respect to the free white de jure citizens of the
States the United States is sovereign in respect to foreign
affairs; domestically only powers granted or reasonably implied
from the Constitution LIMIT its sovereignty to certain specific
spheres." U. S. v. Curtis-Wright Corp. (1936), 299 U. S. 304, 57
S. Ct. 216. 

On Citizenship

     "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 (1845?), Fed.Cas.No. 11,385, 2
Blatchf. 162.  Areas identified by ZIP codes are territories of
the U.S.   

Nonresident, Black's law Dictionary - "not an inhabitant
of the state of the forum." Has nothing to do with a
geographical place.

   Black's Law 5th Edition. "Citizen. One who, under the
Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a
particular state, is a member of the political community,
owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full
civil rights." What happened to the unalienable rights that
do not appear in the definition? "Citizens are members of a
political community who, in their associated capacity, have
established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a
government for the promotion of their general welfare and the
protection of their individual as well as collective rights."
Cite omitted.

     "It is quite clear then that there is a citizenship of the
United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct
from each other and which depend upon different characteristics
or circumstances in the individual." Slaughter House Cases, 83 US
395, 407. 

     "The rights of citizens of the state, 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." United States v. Anthony 24
Federal Cases 829, 830. 

     "The first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be
protected from state action by the privileges and immunities
clause (of the fourteenth amendment)." Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496,
520

     "The rights of a citizen under one (state or United States
citizenship) may be quite different from those which he has under
the other.." Colgate v. Harvey, 296 US 404, 429 

     "The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by
the Seventh Amendment...and the right to bear arms guaranteed by
the Second Amendment...have been distinctly held not to be
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment ...and in effect the same
decision was made in respect of the guarantee against
prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in
the Fifth Amendment...and in respect of the right to be
confronted with witnesses, contained in the Sixth Amendment... it
was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth
Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment, were no privileges and immunities of citizens of the
United States, as those words were used in the fourteenth
Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from
compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of
National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99.
     "There can be no doubt. . . that the civil rights sometimes
described as fundamental and inalienable, which before the war
amendments were enjoyed by state citizenship and protected by
state government, were left untouched by this clause of the 14th
Amendment."  Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 96.

     ". . . there is a clear distinction between national and
State citizenship.  U. S. citizenship does not entitle citizen
[small "c"] of the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizen
of the State [capital "C"]."  K. Tashiro v. Jordan (1927), 256 P.
545, 201 Cal. 239, 53 A.L.R. 1279, affirmed 49 S. Ct. 47, 278 U.
S. 123, 73 L.Ed. 214, 14 C. J. S.  2, p. 1131, note 75.

     "On the other hand, there is a significant historical fact
in all of this. Clearly, one of the purposes of the 13th and 14th
Amendments and of the 1866 act and of section 1982 was to give
the Negro citizenship. . ."  Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967),
379 F.2d 33, 43.

     "It is true that the chief interest of the people in giving
permanence and security to citizenship in the 14th Amendment was
the desire to protect the Negroes."   Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), 18
L.Ed. 2d 758, 764.

     "The object of the 14th Amendment, as is well known, was to
confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship."  United
States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 692.

     "It would be a remarkable anomaly if the national
government, without the amendment, could confer citizenship on
aliens of every race or color, and citizenship, with civil and
political rights, on the "inhabitants" of Louisiana and Florida,
without reference to race or color, and cannot, with the help of
the amendment, confer on those of the African race, who have been
born and always lived within the United States, all that this law
seeks to give them." United States v. Rhodes (1866), 27 Fed. Cas.
785, 794.

"The amendment referred to slavery. Consequently, the only
persons embraced by its provisions, and for which Congress was
authorized to legislate in the manner were those then in
slavery."  Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867), 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29.

     "The only question, therefore, left for determination is the
constitutionality of Section I of the Civil Rights Act of April
9, 1866. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States, as
originally adopted, or in any of the first twelve amendments to
that instrument, adopted shortly after ratification of the
Constitution, would warrant the enactment of this Act by
Congress."  United States v. Morris (1903), 125 Fed. Rep. 322.

     "It is claimed that the plaintiff is a citizen of the United
States and of this state. Undoubtedly she is. It is argued that
she became such by force of the first section of the 14th
Amendment, already recited. This, however, is a mistake. It could
well be claimed that she became free by the effect of the 13th
Amendment, by which slavery was abolished, for she was no less a
citizen than she was free before the adoption of either of these
amendments. No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship
to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.
     "The history and aim of the 14th Amendment is well known,
and the purpose had in view by its adoption, well understood.
That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a
numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the
United States who could not be brought within the operation of
the naturalization laws because (of being) native born; and whose
birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the
status of citizenship. These persons were not white persons, but
were, in the main, persons of African descent who had been held
in slavery in this country or, if having themselves never been
held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves."  
Van Valkenberg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.
(Emphasis added.)

     "It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the
United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct
from each other and which depend upon different characteristics
or circumstances of the individual. . . . Of the privileges and
immunities of the citizens of the United States and of the
privileges and immunities of the citizen of the state, and what
they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to
state here that it is only the former which are placed by this
clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and the
latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any
additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment." 
Slaughter House Cases

     "The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the
United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by
many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided
to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the
United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state." 
United States v. Anthony

     "Naturalization" is a privilege."  United States v. Zgrebee,
38 F.Supp. 127, 129.

     "The opportunity to become a "citizen" is a privilege." 
United States v. Shapiro, 43 F.Supp. 927. 929.