TO: GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT: GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA.
FROM:
Darryl B. Lawton; 702 N.W. Lesne Rd.
14th Judicial District
Fountain, FL. [32438] Phone# (850) 625-4968
Governor Rick Scott
Date:
Office of the Governor
The Capitol
400 S. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL. 32399-0001
Ref: State Citizenship v United States Citizenship
Dear Governor Scott,
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 lead up to these
many questions that have 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 overthrow
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 exactly 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? Because, 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 DUAL 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 outright 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? Especially when the Amendment was 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 pointed at their heads cannot be considered consent. Not to mention the surrogate
government sent in with military support to take out of office the lawfully constituted and
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 invasion 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 its peoples in 1861 and thereafter?
Can anyone 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 without
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 whatever 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 the Court has hidden 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 Court has eluded the question concerning the 14th
Amendment by using this wall, and saying it cannot 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. Virginia, 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. Do 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 75276) Since the 14th Amendment did not ratify, then first and foremost there is no such
thing as a United States 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 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 Florida as adopted in 1861 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
called 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 Virginia 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 was 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 citizenships. What I find is that the
State of Florida 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 of the United States
and of 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 Florida not protecting its lawful citizens? The State
of Florida 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? Why do they willingly create 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 Florida welcome State citizens and provide
the necessary protections required by the Florida Constitution? Will the State of Florida
provide any recognition of such status and provide the different protections to them, as is
required for such a citizen? Will the State of Florida acknowledge the dejure class and
forbid the de facto officers from trespassing on our rights and forcing citizens to have
driver’s licenses when such a 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 other 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 cannot even come close to asking them all because each question packs other
questions that are also packing questions. In essence, will the State of Florida stand up for
truth? By this time it is perfectly clear that my demand here is for you to operate the De
Jure office you are now holding, even though you are holding it de facto. 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 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), 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 de facto 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 those
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
overwhelms 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 socalled elections, there are no sound minds to consult with as to what policies would be
preferred from these people, since the policies have already been pre-stored in them by
the educating institutions.
Furthermore, the people seem to be classified 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 the "Law of Nations” named here speaks 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 supposedly accepted, but
which is in direct contradiction to Vattel’s 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,
whether said law is 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, in this
country 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 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 sufficient 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 supposed to be under the State's protection concerning all of my Rights. 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 classify me as a "subject/ ens legis",
charging me or arresting me for practicing my right to travel on the roads without a
driver’s license when traveling for private purposes. This order should be stated in such a
way that it will be instructing any one of the police officers to allow me free ingress and
egress. I will, out of courtesy, make an identification card that will show a recent 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 ____________________2017
Sincerely,
________________________________ Darryl B. Lawton, A servant only to Jesus Christ
Affadavit and Statement Of Facts
I, Darryl B. Lawton, 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 differences 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 Florida as established in 1845.
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 Florida State Constitutions.
11). I am a State Citizen and hereby state that I am a Floridian 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.
13). I am a White male Christian born in one of the several States on January the 12th
1961.
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,
_________________________________
Darryl B. Lawton, 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___________2017
Witnessed the signature above
________________________________dated___________2017
Witnessed the signature above
________________________________dated___________2017
We appreciate you!
Successfully yours,