Here is the letter:
Joel Rorie
278 Sinclair Rd.
Ninth Judicial District
Summerville, SC [29483]
Phone# 843-875-3597
Governor Mark Sanford
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12267
Columbia, SC 29211
Ref: State Citizenship vs United States Citizenship.
Dear Mr Sanford.,
I wish there was only one or two questions that could be asked of your office that could be
answered in a simple reply, but because of the long string of fraud, distortion, and duplicity that
has been layered , embedded and engraved upon our minds concerning history, legal history, and
the "law of the land" then the questions are in the legions, but I shall keep them down to a few. I
have to admit that I really don't know where to begin. After all I was educated in the
public/government school system, but I will make the best of this if my ill educated background
will not interfere. If my private studies can serve me here then I shall attempt to brief you to
some historical facts that leads up to these many questions that has me baffled. The subjects
these questions will surround is Citizenship, Due Process( before, during and after the Civil
War,) Military (the Union Army) participation in the Article V Amending process of the United
States Constitution, The Congressional (Union Congress of Northerners) usurpation of the
Article V amending process and the outright over throw of all former principles well settled in
our jurisprudence of the time.
Senator Doolittle from Wisconsin quoting all the daily statements from the Senate said to wit:
"What is said every day; the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment, and
therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet, and
establish military power over them until they do adopt it" (See The Congressional Globe Feb
20th 1867 page 1644) This was not just talk for history bears out that they did what they said
they would do. The Reconstruction Acts should be evidence enough. These subjects should be
addressed in total honesty. Does your present office possess such honesty? True freedom, and
liberty rest upon these virtues.
State Citizenship has been the proper (and may I add , "only") status that our forefathers
possessed before the military enforcement of the 14th Amendment upon our Country. In this so
called 14th amendment there was created a new citizenship called "United States Citizens" (See
US v Susan B. Anthony, Van Valkenburg vs. Brown, The Slaughterhouse Cases, Crosse v.
Board of Supervisors of Elections 221 A 2nd 431 1966, Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211
U.S. 78 1908, just to name a few). Even though the proposed amendment can never be shown to
comply with the Article V procedures and mandates or by any other true evaluation can this
proposed amendment ever be constitutionally considered ratified, but it is being forced upon us
in such grievous levels that it would take improper, immoral and out right distasteful language to
describe. Like the Utah State Supreme Court in 1968 stated in the case called Dyett v Turner
"We feel like slaves in a galley" Now, is that any way for a Court to feel? Is that any way for a
Nation to operate? Specially when the Amendment never ratified through Article V which has
very limited methods and procedures and may I add, "simple" instructions as to when an
amendment can be lawfully added to the Constitution? but be assured that you, nor any jurist of
any level will find the use of military power to be used anywhere in Article V. It will also be
remembered that Article V required the willful votes of the State Legislatures. and forbids the
deprivation of State suffrage unless such States consent. Guns
(1)
pointed at their heads can not be considered consent. Not to mention the surrogate government
sent in with military support to take out of office the properly elected office holders. There can
be no proper replacement of an office holder unless the one moved out is "properly" taken out
(see Hoke v. Henderson , Brown et el. v board of Levee Commissioner, and White v White 5
Barb NY 474 1849). I could go on with literally hundreds of historical facts to further conclude
the obvious, but redundancy would more than likely be looked down upon.
I would also like to take this time to cover a well known "hideaway" the Courts have used so as
not to answer the questions of the validity of this amendment. First and absolute foremost, the
attacks and evasion on the Southern States were done without Due Process of Law, so this whole
problem is a judicial question since due process is a strict virtue of the Courts. Did the
government provide Due Process when taking life liberty and property from the States and
it's peoples in 1861 and thereafter? Can any one ever produce the first summons, judicial
hearing of any kind or a single Court order when the so called "guilty" States were being judged
and sentenced by Congress? All that took place concerning the taking of life liberty and property
took place with out the presence or adjudication of the Courts. It will be remembered that
Jeremiah Black, the Attorney General prior to the time that options were being searched out,
plainly stated that it would be illegal to invade the States unless they went through the Courts. He
further elaborated that if the States were to be treated like enemies then they could retaliate in
what ever form they felt necessary, and that ". . . if Congress shall break up the present Union, by
unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the
country, instead of the domestic tranquility which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not
all the States be absolved from their federal obligations?. . . then the Union must utterly perish at
the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose
beyond that of merely protecting the general government in the exercise of its proper
constitutional functions." (See Official Opinions of Attorneys General of the United States vol. 9
page 516 through 526.) What Jeremiah Black said would be the official opinion of the United
States Government according to section 25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act. What branch of
government took heed or even gave it any rank at all. While this is strictly a due process question
yet the Court has hid behind a fraudulent wall called "It's a political Question" Where in the
history of Due Process can it ever be called a political question when due process is strictly a
judicial function?
Any new meaning of Due Process later than the founded definition at the time it was placed in
the United States Constitution in 1790 will have to go through Article V to be constitutionally
accepted. So Post war changes have no standings such as the arrogance of Hurtado v Calf. 110
U.S. 516 (1884) stating that a grand jury would not be necessary "so long as the rest of the trial is
fair" . However, even when the Courts has alluded the question concerning the 14th Amendment
by using this wall, and saying it can not rule on the issue, I find it contradictory that the Court
has made rulings concerning the validity of an amendment five times.(See Hollingsworth v.
Virgina, 3 Dall, 378 1798, ; Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 231 1920; Rhode Island v Palmer, 253
U.S.; Dillion v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, and United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 1931) Such
actions taken by the Court negates any trust in them when they turn around and select a time and
an amendment that it wants to claim it has no authority to rule on.
Article V of the Constitution proves that the State powers are supreme over the Federal powers.
Just pull it out and use it. Don't like the way the Court defines Article VI paragraph 2? States just
put Article V into practice and clarify State authority, Don't Want The Federal government
having 10 square miles? States, put Article V to practice and give them two square feet. Does the
States feel like "Slaves in a galley"? Then take the constitutional power and put the oars back in
the Federal hands. If States Rights are destroyed then so is the government (See Kidd v Pearson,
247 US 75-276)
Since the 14th Amendment did not ratify, then first and foremost there is no such thing as a
United Sates Citizen as defined in post Civil war doctrines( See Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300,
302 1855).
This leaves us with only one kind of Citizenship and that is State citizenship. This being the case,
I demand to be
(2)
recognized as a State Citizen and demand the protection of the State for all of my God given
Rights. You should take note that I said nothing about constitutional rights because there is no
such thing. The Constitution of South Carolina as adopted in 1789 and its amendments are for
my protection and is the only law of the land (See State v Simmons, 2 pears SC, 761,767 ,1844) .
Any other statutes, codes or acts placed upon the books being labeled "laws" that are in
contradiction to the true law of the land has no authority, and is thus null and void (See Calder
vs. Bull 3 Dall US 386 (1798) , Wales v. Stetson 2 Mass. 145; Foster v. Essex bank 16 Mass 245
(1819) and the famous obiter dictum made by John Marshal in what is "call" a case though it was
not, the famous Marbury v Madison.) By the way that case should be called Marshall v. Madison
since it attempts to disclaim what Madison had proclaimed just three years prior in the 1799
Virgina Convention concerning the authority of the State Courts being the highest Courts in the
land. Wonder what happened to that opinion that was made by the actual drafter of the
constitution himself and why it is not the prevailing concept today?
In Barron v Baltimore 7 Pet. US 243 (1833), It has been ruled and understood that our (State
Citizens) rights are to be protected by the States. Some of the cases quoted above also reflect the
differences of protection for the different citizenship. What I find is that the State of South
Carolina is grossly failing to protect her citizens by first allowing them to be defrauded in the
government supported School system where nothing is taught concerning the difference of
citizenship. Why is it that all citizens are being called U. S. citizens? Why are State Citizens (not
U. S. citizens, "who are citizens in the state in which they reside") being conned into believing
that they are U. S. citizens? Why are State Citizens deliberately being misled? Why has the name
"State Citizens" been removed from our vocabulary? and therefore left to disappear from history
and our posterity? Why is the State of South Carolina not protecting its "lawful" citizens?
The State of South Carolina also knowingly allows the false teachings that the 14th Amendment
ratified, and even goes further by placing in open public its policies under said amendment
sending the message that "we are slaves in a galley" to such amendment. Why hasn't the State
protected me from the encroaching, usurping, and tyrannical form of government when this new
and unauthorized power trespasses upon my rights? Why is the Governor and State Legislature
involved in this plot to render the State and Federal Constitutions null and void and willingly
creates legislation and forms that reduce the State Citizens to the status of a subject?
Will this State protect me from the encroaching, usurping, and tyrannical form of government
when this new and unauthorized power trespasses upon my rights?
Will the State of South Carolina welcome State citizens and provide the necessary protections
required by the South Carolina Constitution?
Will the State of South Carolina provide a recognition of such status and provide the different
protections to them as is required for such a citizen?
Will the State of South Carolina acknowledge the special class and forbid the defacto officers
from trespassing on our rights and forcing citizens to have drivers licenses when such citizen is
not on the road
for hire, but only traveling for private purposes?
Will the State stop using only the term United States citizen on all voting , licenses, and etc
applications and add to them State Citizen? After all, what good is a State that has no personal
and
committed Citizens?
Will the State provide historical truths to the text books concerning the 14th Amendment and
how it was never ratified?
As you can see, it is question after question, after question. I can not even come close to asking
them all because each question packs other question that are also packing. In essence, will the
State of South Carolina stand up for truth?
By this time it is perfectly clear that my demands here is for you to operate the Dejure office you
are now holding even though you are holding it defacto. It must be remembered that it is the
"office" that owes me the protections and remedies I am demanding here and not the person(s)
possessing it. Even though you are on the record as being a U. S. citizen and I find no record that
would claim otherwise then it is further clear that this
(3)
State Office is held by a foreign person. It will also be readily perceived once reading Ableman
vs Booth which was quoted in the Jeremiah Black opinion (see above) shows that there are two
different spheres of jurisdictions. It should not be complicated to see that a State Governors
office should be held by a State Citizen and not one from the other sphere. Though there is no
"real" United States Citizen, but even understood as a fiction that is readily accepted (by the ill
informed) would still spin out as a foreign entity. This dilemma causes conflict with my rights
and is an outright trespass upon them. You may also see that all federal offices were (prior to the
war) held by State Citizens. By this assessment we can also determine that the federal offices are
held defacto as well, unless we can determine that the people willfully and with full knowledge
made the changes, but even the people would have to go to convention and make amendments
through Article V (which they have not).. The Constitutional meaning of Citizen clearly is
talking about State Citizens. Thus, When has such a citizen (And strictly a State Citizen)last been
in any of the State offices? When has a State Citizen been a President, or a Congressman?
The damages caused by the fraudulent teachings in the public schools has severed away the
common knowledge from the people in such abundance for so long that one would have to leave
his own generational time table and study past the public memory The modern plenitude that
over whams the commuting elements in the people has dismantled necessary public reasoning to
such a point that their votes have nothing but numerical value. At these so called elections there
is no sound minds to consult with as to what policies would be preferred from these people since
the policies are already been pre-stored in them by the educating institutions. Furthermore the
people seem to be classed as ens legis rather than natural persons.
A final note concerning the Law of Nations. In Article 1 section 8 clause 10 it states to wit: To
define and punish. . . offenses against the Law of Nations. It will be remembered that this "Law
of Nations named out here spoke only of the one written by Emmerich de Vattel written in 1758
and was thereby fully incorporated in our Constitution word for word as stated by John Jay to all
the Grand Juries he instructed around the Circuits. This seems to be totally ignored insomuch
that The Law of Nations has not been practiced as it should. Again, any law contrary to the Law
of Nations is Contrary to the Constitution and against the Several States. New International law
that was supposingly accepted, but in direct contradiction to Vattels Law of Nations has no
binding force because no office holder of any level is authorized to pass legislation (Legislation,
not the same as The Law of the Land, see Westervelt v Gregg 12 NY 209) against the
Constitution rather international or domestic. I remind you again that changing the Constitution
can only be done through the proper use of Article V, which there has never been an Amendment
to nullify Article 1 Section 8 concerning this great part of our laws (See, United States v. Smith 5
Wheat. 153, 160, 162 (1820) ; The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat 1, 40-41
(1826); and United States v. Brig Malek Abhel, 2 How. 210, 232, (1844), yet the present
government violates every portion of it. The importance of this may be recognized by your office
or it may not, but I thought it should be brought up even though I will not at this time be
elaborating about the connection of this to the other problems mentioned above.
YOU MUST ALWAYS REMEMBER: The Constitution is the Supreme Law: "The Constitution
is certain and fixed: it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the
land. It is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the
authority that made it. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the constitution : they owe their
existence to the constitution: they derive their power from the constitution. It is their
commission, and therefore all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The
constitution is the work or will of the people themselves, in their original sovereign and
unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative or subordinate
capacity: the one is the work of the Creator and the other of the creature. The constitution fixes
limits to the exercise of the Legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must
move. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt that every
act of the Legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is absolutely void." (See University of North
Carolina v. Foy 2 Howard NC 310 1805)
Please take note of my Affidavit hereto attached to this letter so as to give your office the
necessary evidence
(4)
of my status. This Affidavit will stand in any Court of law, and can only be rebutted by
overcoming evidence. If your office can produce anything to the contrary then this is my notice
to you , for you to present such evidence to the contrary or accept it as binding truth. You should
make this rebuttal either in writing or en silento . I think 30 days is time enough and will be
efficient time for your office to answer my questions and to accept or to disprove anything in the
affidavit. Your silence shall be considered consenting to all the facts therein.
" I SAID THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT HAD NOT BEEN ADOPTED "
"Senator Henderson, Congressional Globe Feb. 20, 1867 page 1644 )
I believe I have said enough to prove to you that I am what I say I am, and that is a State Citizen.
I
have also given ample proof that the "Law of the Land" is on my side and that I am suppose to
be under the State's protection concerning all of my Rights, So I believe you control that
department and can issue me a letter of recognition along with an order that I can show any
officer that stops me or attempts to class me as a "subject/ ens legis" charging me or arresting me
for practicing my right to travel on the roads without a drivers licenses when traveling for private
purposes. This order should be stated in such away that it will be instructing anyone of the police
officers to allow me free ingress and egress.
I will out of courtesy make an identification card that will show a resent picture of myself and
giving enough details to conclude my identity as a State Citizen and as the person bearing the
Identification. This is so that anyone inquiring or requesting an ID would be able to determine
that I am the natural person in possession of it.
Dated ____________________2007
Sincerely
________________________________
Joel Rorie, A servant only to Jesus Christ
(5)
Affidavit of Facts
I, Joel W. Rorie do solemnly swear (or affirm) that the following statements are true to the best
of my Knowledge.
1. I was educated in the Public School System.
2. I was never taught by the Public School system the various difference in word meanings that
dealt with the law of the land.
3. I was never educated in the Public School system that the 14th Amendment never ratified.
Instead it taught me that the 14th Amendment did ratify and as a result I acted against the true
government of this land.
4. I was taught that there was only one type of Citizenship in the United States of America, and
as a result acted under these false teachings.
5. I am a natural born Person with natural rights given to me by God Himself, and no other.
6. I have in the last few months come to the knowledge of the truth about: (a) The failure of the
14th Amendment to ratify, (b) The falsified definitions planted in the 1864 Webster¢s Dictionary
and restated in every edition thereafter, ©. That lawful words and phrases such as Due Process
and Liberty were changed by the Post Civil War Supreme Court. and as a result have come to the
truth about my original Status.
7. I am not a United States Citizen as defined in Post Civil War Doctrines.
8. I am a Citizen of the State of South Carolina as established in 1789.
9. I have accepted many contracts that relates to the United States Government because of these
teachings that purposely hid the truths about my status, and as a result I ignorantly entered into
many of those contracts.
10. I have presently been engaged in research that has revealed many truths hidden from me by
the Public School system, and as a result of these studies my ignorance has come to an end and I
am now aware of my status as a freeman and hereby denounce all contracts with the New
Military Government established in 1861 that defrauds the people into believing that they are a
legal and lawful government with authority derived lawfully from the organic United States and
South Carolina State Constitutions.
11. I am a State Citizen and hereby state that I am a South Carolinian by right and by Status.
12. When I make use of any words or phrases such as (but not limited to ) Due Process, United
States, Federal, Congress, Citizen, State , Liberty, Jury, E Pluribus Unum, Union, Person etc. that
I use them as well as read them off of other documents in the true meaning as defined before the
Civil War unless clarified personally by myself to be different.
1 of 2
13. I am a White male Christian born in one of the several States on August the 8th 1954.
14. I believe the Bible is the Supreme Law of the Land.
15. I believe that the natural laws come under the Divine Law..
16. I Believe that the Human Laws also known as Civil Laws such as the Law of Nations
(Written by Emmerich de Vattel), United States Constitution, and the Constitutions of the
Several States all fall under the authority of both the Bible and the Natural Laws.
17. I pledge allegiance to the original government established in 1789 and all amendments that
were passed afterward that complied strictly with Article V as the sole authority for passing and
attaching said amendments thereto. This allegiance is therefore only to the original constitution
and amendments 1 through 12 only since I can find no other amendment thereafter that was
properly passed. Through the mandates of Article V.
18. I am a direct posterity of the people mentioned in the preamble of the United States
Constitution that ratified in 1789.
Further affiant saith not
Dated this Day of ______________________
Respectfully Submitted
_________________________________ Joel W. Rorie, In Propria Persona , sui Juris
In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established (II Corinthians 13:1
Witnessed The signature above________________________________dated___________2007
Witnessed The signature above________________________________dated___________2007
Witnessed The signature above________________________________dated___________2007