Categorized | Articles, Video

19 Year Old Can’t Prove Citizenship – No One Can

Posted on February 17th, 2015 by Marc Stevens

This video went viral last week, a 19 year old girl cannot prove she is an American citizen.  This is making her life difficult as she cannot get a driver’s license and other things the oligarchy requires of their slaves.

Truth is that no one, even if you have a birth certificate, can prove citizenship.  I’ve been talking about this since the late 90’s, and wrote about it in Adventures in Legal Land.

To prove one is a citizen requires more than just a birth certificate, there has to be a “state”, a body politic, organized under a government, occupying a certain territory.  A body politic is comprised of citizens.  What is a citizen?

The Supreme Court has held that a citizen is a member of the body politic, owing a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection, these are reciprocal obligations, each a consideration for the other.  Both duties are required for there to be a “citizen.”

The coerced nature of the so-called “protection” negates any duty of protection.  And there is also the legal position where the courts have always held there is no duty to protect anyone, though they maintain the public relations nonsense there is a duty to protect the “public.”

Because there is no duty to protect, there is no duty of allegiance.  Without these “reciprocal duties” there are no citizens.  Without citizens, there is no body politic.  Without a body politic there is no “state” and it follows there is no government.  All you have are men and women forcing us to pay them, and they will make your life very difficult if you don’t have the proper paperwork.

Yes, you can claim that if one is born physically in New York, then the constitution and laws apply to them.  But, that presupposes there is an existing body politic (citizens) and that there is evidence to support that argument.  There isn’t.

If you think there are such facts, please call into the No State Project and do what no politician has been able to do: prove there are citizens and states.

What is sad is that the anger people have is directed at the girl’s parents, not the gang of killers, thieves and liars who force us to pay them.  As if the girl’s parents are the ones forcing compliance and making it so difficult to live in society.  If there is any anger, it should be directed at the psychopaths who coerce us to pay them and comply with their whims.

But I guess it’s easier to rant about her parents than to accept an inconvenient truth: There are no citizens and states.


34 Comments For This Post

  1. Socratic Jeff Says:

    This same thing happened to me. I tried to get a social security card.

  2. kevin michaels Says:

    What ! No duty to protect ! That’s pure nonsense. Why because our public servants: executive, judicial and legislative branches and every form of public servant is required under the First Statute of Congress to take an oath to support and defend the 1787 united states constitution and state public servants are required take the oath prescribed by each state’s constitution.

    Here’s another one, why would you want to claim to be a citizen? when you may be sovereign? Sovereignty out ranks being a U.S. citizen public servant, so why would you want to falsely claim you’re a US CITIZEN ? Falsely claiming to be a US CITIZEN is a felony. There is no law requiring you to get identification, passport for travel. You don’t have to prove anything, only your public servants have to fully disclose and prove. Besides, you want citizenship? Sounds more to me like you want a welfare benefit. Quit this thinking, and get your life together.

    Further, why would you want a driver license? Those are only needed when you transport persons or property for any fare, fee, rate or other compensation. So, when was the last time you operated a TAXI, BUS, DUMP TRUCK, BIG RIG for any fare, fee, rate or compensation? Never? Maybe when you were 20? Each state only requires a driver license for commercial operation. For example, in California, vehicle code section 260(a) requires commercial motor vehicles to be registered, where section 260(b) state you are not required to register if not using your motor vehicle for any fare, fee, rate or other compensation. See also CCR Title 13, section 440. Section 440 identifies that the Dept of Motor Vehicles only issues occupational licenses. Is your occupation doing business using the highways for profit, or do you use the highways as a matter of right (without charging)? I don’t think so.

    Take your oath of allegiance to a repubic state, e.g. California/Texas, etc.

    Stop this nonsensical stuff, it only degrades you.

  3. NonEntity Says:

    “Stop this nonsensical stuff, it only degrades you.”

    Indeed! (shakes head and backs slowly from the room…) 😉

  4. BustdaMatrix Says:

    “There is no law requiring you to get identification, passport for travel.” Right Mr. Blue Donut gives a shit about this while he and his blue line gang has you spread eagle on the ground with guns pointed at you for having the audacity to not comply with their edicts.

  5. qwerty Says:

    Body politic -also known as a jural society. If u register to vote , you will start getting jury duty notices in the mail.

  6. qwerty Says:

    I just watched the video. People are always pointing their fingers in the wrong direction. The reason she is in this position is because there are millions of people who are brainwashed into believing they have no other choice but to do as the mind-rulers (govern – mental) tell them.
    They should be pointing their fingers at themselves.

  7. Dan Gould Says:

    Hey NonE, watch where you’re going, will ya?

  8. Really? Says:


  9. NonEntity Says:

    Sorry Dan, I had my omniscience turned down to save on all the hlobal warming they’ve got going on in New England right now. Mea crapa!

  10. Truth Seeker Says:


    I think the phrase “no legal duty to protect” is the point Marc has made repeatedly. Type the phrase “police have no legal duty to protect” in your favorite search engine and check out the myriad of “supreme court” rulings that prove there is NO LEGAL DUTY to protect.

  11. Michael Scharen Says:

    Marc has already compiled a listing of court rulings stating that government denies any duty to protect ‘We the People’ and will be repairing the link in the wiki — laws by jurisdiction. The fact that compliance is coerced makes any pretention of voluntary association absurd, however.

  12. damon Says:

    Hello and peace be with you,

    These tell a bit,

    “…’government’ has been defined as a body politic, a state; a corporate entity through which the people act; a fictitious entity created by the people…”

    [38 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S. ) [Legal Encyclopedia]]

    Ejusdem Generis would apply in the above.

    U.S. v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875):

    The word ‘State’ ‘describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country or territorial region inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government. It is not difficult to see, that, in all these senses, the primary conception is that of a people or community. The people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently, and whether organized under a regular government or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the State. . . . In the Constitution, the term ‘State’ most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A State, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such States under a common constitution which forms the distinct and greater political unit which that constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and States which compose it one people and one country.’ Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 720, 721.

    The “State” is an idea per the above.

    The issue here is everyone has consented to be governed. It is the “benefits” where they trap the folks. Is one a “resident”? Does one claim to be a “citizen”? I would question the legitimacy of an argument that is based on hypocrisy. “There are no citizens, yet I claim to be one”? One cannot simultaneously confirm and then deny.

    Her parents did the correct thing that she fails to see. They did not register/baptize her with Caesar/State. If they did, they would be attempting to bind her to a statutory welfare system of bondage like they had in Egypt long ago and Rome, not so long ago. If one takes from the system by way of welfare one is required to pay into it, and rightfully so. It is who the majority of folks look to for their source of protection, security, and authority to do the things they do. Hence it is their “god”.

    There is a maxim of law they enjoy, contract makes the law. I actually see it would be better worded “contracts are enforceable because of the law” ( let your yes be yes and your no be no, and thou shall not bear false witness) but non the less.

    They have couched in title 5 of their U.S. code a couple of “terms” they have defined. Section 552 I believe. Federal Personnel and Federal Benefit Program. It basically states that anyone who is or is able too receive referred retirement benefits (social security) is considered “federal personnel”. Stop using the “benefits”.

    Repent and care for one another as obligated out of a pure heart and you will regain your liberty.

    Peace be with you,

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

  13. Dr Hypno Says:

    The body politic is to a human as a forest is to a tree, and a forest does not exist, it’s a reification regardless of what another human ‘decider’ deems it to be.

  14. Michael Scharen Says:

    Well stated, Dr. Hypno.

    Where does one forest end and the next one begin? It is not the trees who decide, but the loggers it seems. And, the assumption is that all the trees within an arbitrary designation are to be treated the same. Where I am from, the clear cutting would mow all of them down, just the same.

    Time to start spiking the trees.

  15. Silybum Says:

    Through the looking glass:

    Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean,
    nothing more nothing less.

    Alice: The question is whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.

    Humpty: The question is which is to be the master, that’s all.

  16. Kurt Says:

    Love the trailer graphic at the beginning and end. Thanks for producing this one to step us through it again. The case is made!

  17. Michael Scharen Says:


    Alice in wonderland… Right on!

    `No, no!’ said the Queen. `Sentence first–verdict afterwards.’

    `Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!’

    `Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.

    `I won’t!’ said Alice.

    `Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

    `Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) `You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’

  18. Silybum Says:


    “Person”, in statute terminology, refers to those to whom the 14th amendment of Constitution affords protection. In general usage however, the word means human being.

  19. Silybum Says:

    All members of a political community are considered to be persons just as all members of an Elk’s lodge are “elks”. As an elk, you have standing within that group. No elk status – no standing.

  20. NonEntity Says:

    SilyBum sed:. No elk status – no standing.

    If I’m sitting at an Elk thing and decide to stand and walk out on my big elk feet, will they wave guns at me and demand a significant portion of all my worldly assets and a significant portion of all assets I may acquire in the next ten (or whateverthey may decide anytime they god damned well want to) years even if I have a genetic implant and become a moose?

    Just askin’, you unnerstand. Just askin’.

    – NonHerbivoreByBirth-HerbivoreByPersonalFreelyChozenChoice

  21. Silybum Says:


    If you represent yourself to be part of a group,it may be determined that you are amenable to that group’s rules.

    A “person”,in statutory terminology, is someone to whom the laws of the U.S. apply and to whom protection is afforded.

  22. NonEntity Says:

    SilyBum, it’s so nice and thoughtful of you to define reality for me. I’m certain you’ve ascertained that I’m incapable of making such weighty decisions all by my incompetent self.

  23. Silybum Says:


    You must be on the non-welcoming committee.

  24. NonEntity Says:

    SilyBum, I’m not all that welcoming to tyranny. If you find that a problem then you’ll have to deal with it.

  25. Andy Says:

    Sillybum, are you advocating tyranny or do you think NonEntity chose to imply that you’re advocating tyranny?

  26. Boxer Says:


    What is a statute?

  27. Silybum Says:

    So if u cant get the judge to make the prosecutor prove jurisdiction, there is something else that needs to be proven – personal liability of the defendant. No fact or question of liability may be conclusively presumed against the defendant.

    “The fact is that you were born here therefore you are amenable to the laws.”

    I think that would be considered to be a conclusive presumption.

    — not here to advocate tyranny…

  28. Silybum Says:


    Ink on paper to me. Rules that apply to “persons” or members of a political community that govt. agents attempt to force on everyone.

  29. Andy Says:

    “Nonentity, You must be on the non-welcoming committee.”

    🙂 Good one!

    NonEntity is paranoid. Had the discussion happened in real space, you’d likely have received his look-of-death glare>

  30. dan Says:

    I thought NonEntity alre as dy got those genetic moose implants?

  31. Silybum Says:


    You say there are no citizens or rights (I agree) – but then you go on to say that a person’s due process rights may be violated. WTF?

  32. NonEntity Says:

    No dan. You’ve got it wrong again! Those are generic moose implants. I can’t afford the good ones.

  33. Boxer Says:


    Marc is simply reiterating what the peeps in robes are telling you. He’s attempting to get you to understand that the public relations doesn’t match the reality. “They” (government) are the ones making the assertion that you have due process rights. In other words, you wouldn’t need due process rights if you weren’t attacked from the beginning.

    If, as “they” claim, you are entitled to due process and a fair and impartial trial, do they allow for an objective examination of the evidence? No, of course not, because their livelihood depends on your acceptance of their “authority” and their willingness to attack you.

  34. marc stevens Says:

    Silybum, I explicitly tell people they do not have due process rights, that the predators are violating their pretended due process obligations. They believe they are supposed to give due process, I just point out they failed to do so.

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Feb 21, 2015 - Says:

    […] 19 Year Old Can’t Prove Citizenship – No One Can. […]

  2. 19 Year Old Can’t Prove Citizenship – No One Can | Freedom's Floodgates Says:

    […] By Marc Stevens […]

  3. EYE OF NEWT, TOE OF FROG – ACT VI | there is no debt Says:

    […] * 19 Year Old Can’t Prove Citizenship – No One Can […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.

Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here