LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME

Karin Huffer has discovered why many people leave a courtroom frustrated and sick. On Wednesday April 2, 2008 we presented a new program called FAMILY COURT - Part 2 - Dennis Grover and Michael Nance are joined on the phone by Stephen Baskerville author of TAKEN INTO CUSTODY and Karin Huffer author of LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME. Stephen shares his research into the atrocities of Family Court, where it came from and questionable tactics and implementations of its own rules that affect mostly children. Karin Huffer explores the foundation of Legal Abuse Syndrome and has proven that a constant negative result from any courtroom experience produces Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome in litigants. Before you go to any court, understand that Justice is not a part of the equation and prepare yourself for the possibilities of being in a situation that is based in judge and attorney created rules rather than common sense. The full program is available at http://www.libertyandjusticeforall.tv/family_court2.htm $10.75 ppd. copying and sharing is encouraged.

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

OCS misconduct

  Fairbanks Daily Newsminer

 

by Karen VanReenan / Fairbanks

11.08.12 - 11:50 pm

Nov. 5, 2012

To the editor:

Why is it you cannot talk to five people in this town without encountering someone involved with the state Office of Children’s Services, either indirectly or who has had their children taken from them? Without divulging private information, I can say I’ve sat in on adjudication hearings and permanency hearings, and have seen OCS officials violate a judge’s order immediately after it was issued. I’ve known families who were excluded from meetings or not even notified of court hearings where it was ultimately decided to pursue custody of children by the state.

I’ve known parents and foster parents who cannot get phone calls returned by OCS. I myself once called a caseworker in January, only for the voicemail to inform me that said caseworker would not be returning to the office until November of the previous year. One caseworker even showed up for a home visit with a hickey visible on her neck. When I addressed a complaint to OCS personally, a complaint that was supposed to be addressed within three days, I didn’t get a call back for two weeks.

The OCS office in Fairbanks even ignores state laws that call for reasonable measures to place siblings together in foster care. It will not grant parents regularly scheduled visitation with their children. In one instance I know of, a veteran caseworker was caught misreading a urine analysis as positive — it was later proven negative by the accused party. Go ahead, ask five people you know, and you’re likely to find at least one who has had involvement with OCS.

Undoubtedly, there are cases of abuse and neglect that call for OCS intervention, but even in those cases all parties should be kept informed of and involved in the process. And then there are cases where OCS has undeniably overstepped its bounds, taking children from parents who had already placed their children safely with family. The way OCS performs its duty leaves you the impression that its objective is a sneaky one aimed at preserving the same bottom line corporations have to, and not its stated objective of reunifying families.

Karen VanReenan

Fairbanks

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Dictatorship

Daily News Miner

by Susan Roatch

11.11.12 - 12:00 am

Nov. 8, 2012

To the editor:

Now that the election is over, it is time for real change in this country of we the people. There is a government force that has been destroying families for years with the help of the court system. The destructive force is called the Office of Children’s Services.

They go after people who cannot afford a high-priced attorney. They falsify information to make parents look bad, even though they do not charge the parent with a crime. In this way, they call it a civil case and do not allow parents to have jury trials, which should be a crime in itself.

They take children from their loving home and force them to live with strangers against their will or, worse yet, put them in a so-called behavior treatment center where they are severely traumatized. The parent is given a case plan that goes on basically forever. There is no end in sight, so many parents are forced to give up.

They go to court, lie on the stand and are not held accountable for their actions. They are given free rein by the court system. They do not present tangible evidence, and the judge goes along with whatever they say. Then the judge makes up his own garbage and slams the parent.

This is akin to a dictatorship. If the system thinks that we the parents have committed some crime against our children, then we should be charged with said crime and have the right to a jury trial. Let me also add that OCS does not take the time to listen to the children.

The yahoos in Juneau need to start paying attention and do a thorough investigation of the reality of what’s happening with this government organization. We the people deserve better from the government. The corruption needs to end. Our children are precious and not disposable. Making money from the suffering of others is appalling. Hold them accountable.

Susan Roatch

Fairbanks

 *The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Surprise! Audit uncovers rampant fraud in fed program.

WND EXCLUSIVE

 by Bob Unruh

Millions suspected stolen under Medicaid plan to help disabled

A federal audit of one part of the Medicaid system has uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars in suspected fraud, including payments to caregivers to provide home-care services to the disabled even when they are hospitalized or in nursing homes.
“It would seem inconceivable – even for today’s bloated government – if it wasn’t laid out in a report … by the offending agency’s inspector general,” noted Judicial Watch, which reported on the systemic failure.
Judicial Watch said the issue centers on personal care services provided by the federal and state-funded health insurance Medicaid, which have been provided to the disabled since the Supreme Court ruled in the 1990s that such care is a civil right.
“The idea is to allow the sick, disabled and those with chronic or temporary conditions [to] stay home and, in turn, avoid sticking Uncle Sam with a hefty hospitalization bill,” Judicial Watch said.
“Instead, Medicaid’s personal care services program is rife with corruption that was first exposed more than five years ago and continues to be documented annually by the agency’s watchdog. The budget has ballooned to more than $12 billion a year, just to send what amounts to a nanny to provide supportive ‘nonmedical services’ like meal preparation, housework, help with bathing and getting dressed, transportation and even money management.”
The IG report on the troubling loss of federal taxpayer dollars said Obamacare provisions that already have kicked in have contributed to the increasing number of dollars in the program.
“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 removed barriers to providing home and community-based services by allowing additional state plan amendment options, increasing states’ timeframes to elect and renew PCS as a care option, and streamlining processes for accessing home and community-based services,” the report said. “The ACA also provided additional funding for programs supporting home care goals, such as the Money Follows the Person demonstration and the Community First Choice Option programs.”
But the program has significant troubles, including error rates on documentation of costs as high as 40 percent in New Jersey, where more than $145 million in costs were questioned.
“Since 2009, seven of the eight completed audits have identified over $582 million in questioned costs,” the report said.
Also revealed was the fact that states don’t monitor the programs and payment circumstances, leading some caregivers to be able to collect payments even when the disabled person for whom they are supposed to be providing services is hospitalized or in a nursing home.
“[An] evaluation examining PCS in 20 states over a one-year period found that 18 percent of paid claims for Medicaid PCS in a universe totaling $724 million were inappropriate because the required qualifications for PCS attendants were undocumented,” the report said.
And,” it continued, “an audit examining paid PCS claims over a 30-month period in Nebraska identified 464 instances in which PCS providers billed and were improperly paid for PCS during the beneficiaries’ inpatient hospital stays.”
In many cases, neither the time frame for the provided service nor the attendant’s identification was included on a bill.
John Alemoh Momoh, owner and operator of Hopecare Service Inc., was sentenced to two years in jail and ordered to repay more than $656,000 after it was discovered he submitted claims inflating the number of hours and claiming payments for services not provided, the report said.
It noted that most fraud cases come to the attention of authorities through someone who knows the person committing the fraud because there are few checks and cross-checks to identify problems.
Among the steps that need to be taken, the report said, is the standardization of PCS attendant qualifications, improved billing monitors and a cut in the rules and regulations.
“For example, PCS attendants and agencies that commit fraud often bill for impossibly or improbably large volumes of services; for services that conflict with one another (e.g. a PCS attendant purports to provide many hours of services to multiple beneficiaries on the same dates); or for services that could not have been performed as claimed because of geographical distances between beneficiaries purportedly served by the same PCS attendant on the same day. If claims contained more specific details, including the exact dates of service and the identity of the PCS attendants, such irregular billings could be more easily and systematically discovered through claims analysis by state program integrity units,” the report said.
Judicial Watch noted that the billings for home care have risen 35 percent since 2005, and fraud also is on the rise.
Right now, under the system, “Medicaid recipients can hire practically anyone to help them and collect the money and providers undergo virtually no scrutiny.”
In fact, auditors list examples of Medicaid recipients hiring juveniles, relatives and girlfriends to provide services. One man was in jail while his girlfriend collected money from the government to supposedly provide him with home care,” the report said.

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

DETROIT SOCIAL WORKERS PLEAD GUILTY TO MEDICARE FRAUD

On behalf of Burdick Law, P.C. posted in Federal crimes on Wednesday, September 5, 2012

There is no doubt that the federal government is cracking down on Medicare fraud. With the national debt steadily creeping upwards and some lawmakers looking for reasons to cut the program, the government has become more aggressive in its pursuit of charges related to healthcare fraud. Unfortunately, this sometimes results in innocent people getting caught in a widely thrown net and needing the help of attorneys to defend against federal charges.
Incidentally, since 2007 the Medicare Fraud Strike Force has pressed charges against a total of 1,330 people who were collectively accused of fraudulently billing Medicare for over $4 billion. Recently, three Detroit social workers fell into that category.
They pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud for perpetuating a scheme that attempted to defraud Medicare out of $3.1 million. The investigation was conducted by the FBI and the Department of Health and Human Services.
According to court records, the Detroit residents operated a company called New Century Adult Day Program Services LLC in Flint, Michigan. From November 2009 to April 2012, the three defendants apparently billed Medicare for services that were never rendered. The defendants were accused of attracting Medicare recipients to their business by promising patients medication.
Once in the office, the social workers allegedly told the patients they were required to sign up for psychotherapy services before they could see a doctor. The defendants would then use the patients' signatures on registration forms to create documents billing Medicare for the services.
Out of the amount billed, Medicare paid $740,394. All three Detroit residents face up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Two of the defendants are scheduled for sentencing on Jan. 8, 2013, while the third is scheduled for Jan. 29, 2013.

Source: FBI.gov, "Detroit-Area Resident Pleads Guilty to Participating in $3.1 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme," Aug. 22, 2012

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

NH Supreme Court: Parental Alienation Inimical to Child’s Best Interests

NH Supreme Court: Parental Alienation Inimical to Child’s Best Interests

April 4th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
This case is excellent, not only because of its result, but mostly because of its sound analysis.  It should serve as a template for courts not only here in the U.S. but in other countries as well.
It comes to us from the Supreme Court of New Hampshire and analyzes a situation in which false allegations of child sexual abuse were used by a mother to deprive a father of contact with his children.  It’s a familiar pattern of facts and altogether too rare an outcome.
In 1999, James Miller met Janet Todd online.  They developed a relationship and, although they never married, had two daughters.  Laurel was born in 2002 and Lindsey in 2003.  Ultimately, a New Hampshire court awarded joint custody with Todd as primary custodian and Miller with visitation rights.
But early on, Todd’s mother claimed she had seen Miller sexually abusing Laurel.  Thus began a long series of allegations of child sexual abuse against Miller.  They were still going on as late as March, 2009, some five years after the first one.
Each and every claim was investigated; each and every claim was determined to be unfounded.  As part of the investigations, the girls were subjected to invasive pelvic examinations at least twice each.
False though the allegations were, they served a purpose; they caused the New Hampshire family court to suspend Miller’s parenting time with his children throughout the course of the proceedings.  That meant that, for over two years, he had no contact with his daughters and they none with him.
Eventually, in July, 2006, the court ordered psychologist Dr. Peggie Ward to thoroughly examine Miller, Todd, the girls and the family situation to determine issues of custody, alienation, sexual abuse, etc.  It took Ward 17 months to produce her 88-page report which the court found to be “extraordinarily thorough.”
What Ward concluded was that there was no reliable evidence of sexual abuse by Miller.  She also concluded that Todd had probably not set out to deliberately alienate the girls from their father; that probably originated with Todd’s mother.  The problem stemmed not only from the various claims of abuse, but from Todd’s almost total inability to accurately process everyday occurrences.

[p]sychological testing shows that Ms. Todd has a “serious
impairment in her ability to accurately process the information she takes in from her surroundings and the degree of misperception she demonstrates has major implications for her adaptive functioning. Ms. Todd’s level of distortion is substantial and predisposes her to misunderstanding and misconstruing intentions, motivations and actions of other people. This places her at great risk for faulty judgment, for errors in decision-making, and for behaving in ways that are based on inaccurate information.  These data indicate that Ms. Todd will not only fail to recognize or foresee the consequences of her actions at times, but that she will also become confused at times in separating fantasy from reality.”

In other words, Todd was unable to sort out false allegations from real ones.  Into the bargain, Todd failed to protect her daughters from her own feelings and fears about what she thought may be happening, thereby perpetuating the girls’ own confusion about the nature of what daddy had or had not done.
So, given years of false allegations against Miller and the manifest inability by Todd to (a) distinguish fantasy from reality and (b) promote a healthy relationship between Miller and his daughters, the trial court did what so many of them do; it gave custody to the children’s mother.
That violated New Hampshire law which requires parents to promote positive relationships between the opposite parent and the children.  It also ignored the rather startling fact that Todd’s emotional problems posed obvious risks for any child in her care.
So why did the court give her custody?  Because the kids had been with her for several years during which time they’d had no contact with Miller.  They’d developed friendships at school and so, according to the court, their “best interests” required them to see little or nothing of their father, depending on the decisions of their clearly unbalanced mother.
If that makes sense to you, please explain it to me.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court squashed that one like a bug.  Its opinion grasps what so many courts do not – that continuing, deep and rich relationships with both parents are in the child’s best interests.  The mother’s obstruction of  such relationships between the children and the father is per se not in their best interests.
Why that should be so difficult to understand is beyond me.  The statutes of New Hampshire make it clear as do the statutes and courts of other jurisdictions.  The court said:

“Across the country, the great weight of authority holds that conduct by one parent that tends to alienate the child’s affections from the other is so inimical to the child’s welfare as to be grounds for a denial of custody to, or a change of custody from, the parent guilty of such conduct.”

And yet time and again, courts ignore statute and case law and look only at the fact that the child has been separate from the father for a certain period of time.  They then conclude that the he cannot have future contact or that it must be limited, without ever noticing how his lack of contact came about.
The New Hampshire court specifically objected to the concept that Todd had “benefitted from her own misbehavior.”  That’s a concept I’ve waited many years to hear a court articulate.  For as long as I’ve been a student and advocate of fathers’ rights, I’ve been astonished at courts’ willingness to ignore mothers’ wrongdoing in order to grant them custody.  That happens as a matter of routine in adoption cases.
What Miller v. Todd does is to show that the requirement on the part of each parent to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent is necessary and beneficial to the child.  It also shows that courts will not reward the alienating behavior of parents.
And that, in a nutshell, is how courts should rule in these cases.  They should make it clear that false allegations of abuse are not acceptable and that they will not be used to benefit the alienating parent.
It’s a simple concept that more courts need to grasp.

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Massive Dental Fraud Uncovered

 NORTH CAROLINA DENTAL SERVICES CHAIN PAYS $10 MILLION TO RESOLVE FALSE CLAIMS ALLEGATIONS
CHARLOTTE  – Medicaid Dental Center (MDC), a privately-owned chain of dental clinics in North Carolina previously known as Smile Starters and Carolina Dental Center, has reached a settlement with the United States and North Carolina to resolve False Claims Act allegations, the Justice Department announced today. Under the agreement, MDC agreed to pay
$10,050,000 to resolve allegations that it caused false or fraudulent claims for payment to be presented to the North Carolina Medicaid program by billing for medically unnecessary dental services performed on indigent children.

Massive Dental Fraud Uncovered

Part 1 -aired March 6, 2009. Report on dental treatment for the low income by FORBA/Small Smiles

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

UN May Recognize Sex Rights for Ten-Year Old Children

 Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute

Mar 29, 2012

UN May Recognize Sex Rights for Ten-Year Old Children

By Timothy Herrmann

NEW YORK, March 30 (C-FAM) The UN Commission on Population and Development is considering “sexual and reproductive health and rights” for children as young as ten. Even the Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon agrees. In a statement recently released he said, “Young people, as much as all people, share the human right to health, including sexual and reproductive health.”
Currently international law does not recognize a “right” to sexual and reproductive health and certainly does not recognize this right in the case of minors. But just last year, the UN Special Rapporteur for Health, Anand Grover, stirred up significant controversy when he not only claimed that a “right” of sexual and reproductive health existed but attempted to define that right as including access to abortion, contraception, and sexual education.
The association of this right with youth by the Secretary General and the Commission on Population and Development (CPD), especially children, is more controversial since the right could be defined as including access to abortion and contraception.
Organizations like International Planned Parenthood (IPPF) and IPAS, staunch advocates for the sexual and reproductive rights of minors internationally and at the United Nations, have already issued official reports to the conference bureau supportive of rights language including contraception and abortion. They are also using the conference as an opportunity to attack parental involvement in the sexual health of their children.
For organizations like IPPF, parents are the biggest obstacle to minors accessing services like abortion and contraception, and they hope to secure language at the conference that will marginalize their role.
In its official statement, IPPF asserts,  “laws that restrict young people’s access to sexual and reproductive health services, including parental or spousal consent laws” must either be removed or be refrained from being implemented. IPAS goes even further and argues that youth should be considered independent actors free of any obstacles that ignore their own “capacity to make informed decisions.” Their main goal at this conference will be to marginalize parental involvement and encourage countries supportive of their position to increase pressure for the kind of language that the Secretary General has already been proposing.
Given that the document that will be negotiated at the conference calls upon “governments…to give full attention to meeting the reproductive health, service, and education needs of young people with full respect for their privacy and confidentiality,” it seems their efforts may already have a head start.
The Commission members have started negotiating the document now and the final negotiating session will happen in April. It is sure to be among the most controversial in years.

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

PEOPLE or CITIZEN WHICH ONE ARE YOU?

PEOPLE

The Preamble does not specifically define the word "People." Nevertheless, the definition becomes apparent in the context of the other words and prior history.

HISTORY

Before the United States existed, there was no legal government. A group of representatives, acting "in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies," declared the independence of the colonies from the British Crown and the state of Great Britain.
From the beginning, in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the people were acknowledged as the source of authority, i.e. the sovereignty which authorized the Declaration of Independence.
Next came the 1778 Articles of Confederation. The states that existed by the authority of the people, created those Articles while in Congress assembled. That didn't work as well as expected.
In 1787 the people themselves came forth "to ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" [see Preamble]. On September 17th, 1787, the states held a convention and all those present unanimously joined in. [see last paragraph of U.S. Constitution]
So, in 1787, unanimous concurrence was achieved and the Constitution was born, later to be ratified.

PREAMBLE

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

STRUCTURE OF PREAMBLE

TRUSTOR: We the People [trustors]
VENUE: of the United States
PURPOSE: in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
BENEFICIARY: to ourselves and our Posterity,
ENABLING ACTION 1: do ordain [declare the law]
ENABLING ACTION 2: and establish [bring into existence]
WHAT: this Constitution [articles of incorporation for trust]
TRUSTEE: for the United States of America. [trustee]

ANALYSIS OF PREAMBLE

The Preamble defines the context in which the remainder of the Constitution must be interpreted. Most of it is self explanatory. Here's an explanation that points to popular sovereignty:
After the Declaration of Independence, but before the ordainment and establishment of the Constitution, the people of the United States pretty much handled their own affairs using the common law. They were not subject to any higher authority other than the authority of the common law as administered by the people themselves (self governance). Although the states did exist, they only existed by the authority of the people. Every man was a king, and every woman a queen--and none had any subjects. Upon declaring our independence, we all became sovereigns and members of the peerage (nobility).
"The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S."

Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
"D." = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)

The enabling actions in the Preamble are significant because there is simply nothing in the use of those words to imply that the People relinquished any of their own power and authority. The People declared the law (ordain) without taking away from themselves the authority to declare law again in the future. The People established the Constitution without taking away from themselves the authority to establish anything else in the future. In other words, the people gave birth to the Constitution without giving up any of their own power and authority.
What was before, continues to be so today.
From the context of the Preamble, one may conclude that the laws of the United States do not apply to People. The People, as ordainers and establishers of the country are sovereigns of the country, may not be involuntarily subjected to the laws of the United States.
Because of Amendment X ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the government has no authority, and cannot assume any authority over the People. Government powers may not reach beyond that which is constitutionally granted. In order for the government to subject People to its law it is necessary for the People to relinquish their sovereignty. Sovereignty is a natural right which cannot lawfully be relinquished involuntarily. Any removal of sovereignty must be accomplished voluntarily by the subject himself.

---

DEFINITION OF CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES 

HISTORY

Before ratification of the Amendment XIV , there was no legal definition of the term "citizen of the United States." The term was used, but only generally. After the Civil War the slaves were freed but there was no legal basis to recognize them as having any rights. Amendment XIV partially solved that problem.
"Free the slaves," was the rallying cry combined with the Civil War that resulted in Amendment XIV. Amendment XIV created a new class of person called "citizen of the United States." Any ex-slave could now claim citizenship, and, by the way, so could any of the People if they so chose to do. Amendment XIV made possible the voluntary relinquishment of personal sovereignty.
It was also during the mid 1800's that the various governments took control of the school systems. The curriculum shifted from civics (the study of natural rights and common law) to American government (the study of civil privileges and statutory law). Emphasis was also refocused on "good citizenship". To blunt the people's perception, the civil privileges were called civil rights. The transition from teaching "natural rights" to teaching "civil rights" took about 100 years (from the 1850's to the 1950's). During the 1950's the school systems changed the courses named from "Civics" to "American Government." Hardly anyone now is aware of the subject of civics as a school course.
The phrase, "citizens of the United States," is defined in the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment XIV:

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Section 5. "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

STRUCTURE OF AMENDMENT XIV

WHO: All persons
QUALIFICATION:
(A) born or naturalized in the United States, and
(B) subject to the jurisdiction thereof
PURPOSE: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
ENFORCED BY: The Congress
ENFORCEMENT METHOD: Legislation

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENT XIV

As discussed above, the People are sovereign. The People are not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, even though they are born in the United States.
Amendment XIV inverts the relationship. One of the qualifications to be a citizen of the United States is that one must be born or naturalized in the United States. Another qualification is that one must be, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is not possible to be a citizen of the United States without being born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But, if you are born or naturalized, and if you are subject to the jurisdiction, then you automatically qualify as a citizen of the United States.
From the point of view of the federal enforcers, the qualifications are worked in reverse. They reverse-interpret Amendment XIV as saying that if you say you are a citizen of the United States, then that automatically means you are totally subject to its jurisdiction [and have been born or naturalized]. This opinion is not shared by the judicial branch. See 14 C.J.S. 426, 430:

The particular meaning of the word "citizen" is frequently dependent on the context in which it is found[25], and the word must always be taken in the sense which best harmonizes with the subject matter in which it is used[26]. "One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for other purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for political purposes[27]. So, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as such he is entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property, even though he is not vested with the suffrage or other political rights[28].
"[25] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore, 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
[26] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore. 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
      La.--Lepenser v Griffin, 83 So. 839, 146 La. 584
      N.Y.--Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N.Y. 454
[27] U.S.--The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322
      --Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208
      Md.--Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82
      Mass.--Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531
      R.I.--Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com'rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212
[28] Mass.--Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568"

In any case, if you fail to object to the government's view of citizenship, then you will most certainly be subjected to the laws of the government. That means no rights, only privileges. To see a list of privileges granted or denied to the citizens (there is no list for the People's natural rights because the People automatically have all rights), see People's rights vs citizen's rights
ONE OF THE PEOPLE OR ONE OF THE CITIZENS?
The first issue to be resolved in any court proceeding is that of jurisdiction. Does the one entity have jurisdiction over the other entity? One should never go into court without a clear understanding as to whether he is there as a citizen, or there as one of the people. If you claim you are a citizen of the United States, then it is strongly implied (though not necessarily true) that you are subject to the laws of the United States. On the other hand, if you are one of the People, then it is legally implied that you are a legal king, with a sovereignty superior to that of the United States, and subject only to the common law of the other kings (your peers). In short: the People are superior to the government, the government is superior to the citizens. That is the hierarchy.

PEOPLE ---> GOVERNMENT ---> CITIZENS As a king you "are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." You can do what you want to do when you want to do it. You have your own property and your own courts. There is no limit as to what you may do other than the natural limits of the universe, and the sovereignty of a fellow sovereign. You should treat the other sovereign in accordance with the Golden Rule, and at the very least must never harm him. Your sovereignty stops where the other sovereignty begins. You are one of the owners of the American government, and it is their promise that they will support your sovereignty (i.e. they have promised to support the Constitution and protect it from all enemies). You have no allegiance to anyone. The government, your only [public] servant, has an allegiance to you. As a citizen, you are only entitled to whatever your sovereign grants to you. You have no rights. If you wish to do something that would be otherwise illegal, you must apply for a license giving you special permission. If there is no license available, and if there is no specific permission granted in the statutes, then you must apply for special permission or a waiver in order to do it. Your only allegiance is to your sovereign (the government), and that allegiance is mandated by your sovereign's law (the government, though not absolutely sovereign, is sovereign relative to you if you claim to be a citizen of the sovereign).
Here is a typical example:
As one of the People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.
As one of the citizens, you may not travel by automobile unless you are either a licensed motor vehicle driver, or you are a passenger with permission to be on board. Gun ownership is a privilege subject to definition and regulation. You do not have a right to a jury trial in all cases, and no right to grand jury indictment--a trial is a trial by the government, not the people.

 http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207