Testimonial: state citizen explanatory statements with passport application
First off, just to be clear for the record as some people have some confusion on this... what we are talking about is NOT applying for a STATE CITIZEN PASSPORT, GREEN PASSPORT, or anything other than the normal passport for the United States of America which is issued to everyone.
What we're doing here, is doing the standard application with some minor adjustments and submitting it with an EXPLANATORY STATEMENT. If you read the DS-11 application for new passports or the DS-82 application for renewals and look in the signature box, you'll see that even the form makes an express reference to explanatory statement which may be attached if or when someone may have any form of objection to the jurat and their sworn signature.
It is this EXPLANATORY STATEMENT which (in my case is an 11 page legal memorandum) fully details the law and establishes my full intent to go on record as a Florida state citizen / Americn national as opposed to a U.S. Citizen.
The passport which comes out the other end is no different than any other passport. The benefit of doing this is as follows;
Upon issuance of the passport, it is now a matter of record with the U.S. Dept. of State (dealing in foreign affairs appropriately) what the nature of your status is.
Practical example of how this might be of benefit: One lady was hauled into federal court on tax issues which of course apply to U.S. citizens. She filed so many documents trying to correct that presumption. The prosecutor got ahold of her passport application and said basically, to paraphrase... "A ha! You don't want to be a U.S. citizen most of the time, but when you travel you use your US passport and then you want to be a US citizen. So you only want to deny your US citizenship when it's convenient?"
Not a good situation.
Now, once the passport is issued, we do a FOIA request and get certified copies of all the application documents and this can be used whenever necessary to validate your claim to status so you don't end up like this poor lady in the courtroom.
======
Now, my experience. I live in Panama and had to manage this in the Consulate in the US Embassy there which takes me all day to travel to get there and get home again, so it's a project.
My first visit I made the error of refusing to sign the application, thinking that the sworn, notarized explanatory statement was replacement for the signature on the app. This was incorrect on my part and I didn't understand the directions of the procedure apparently. They wouldn't let me submit it that way. I went around and around with them and finally they said they'd check with the State Dept. in DC and get some legal counsel on the issue. They would call me once they got an answer and I could come back. So I left and regrouped to come back another time.
They called me and then had me come back again. The lady still wasn't coming around to other issues raised on the phone and I wasn't going to argue with anyone so I just agreed to come back in and discuss it further in person. My second visit I was referred to the Vice-Consul who tried to convince me that the three spots on my application, where it said 'See Explanatory Statement Attached, would have to be removed as this is considered 'defacing the application'.
Chris Gronski says this is crap. They take these applications all day long they way he prepares them.
I disagreed with the Vice-Consul in that 2 of the notices were in the margin. The entire application is surrounded by a solid line which borders the document. Outside of that is a thin white margin. The application is what is contained inside this border. The margin is only the paper on which the application is printed and is not 'part' of the document. This is known as the 'four corners' rule.
The third notice was in an area of the document under the jurat which wasn't being used and served no purpose. I informed the lady that without some reference to the explanatory statement, if I signed the jurat without any reference to the statements, then the application would be a stand alone document and if the statement wasn't attached, which I had no guarantee that it would be, it would be without any standing or import to the application.
We were at a standoff and she was not going to process my application the way I wanted. So I asked the Vice Consul to please give me a written explanation of her position and the legal basis for it. She gave me a letter, which I later learned was just a standard 'adjudication' form letter which basically stated I was entitled to a passport and if I came back in within 90 days to sign a correct application they'd be happy to process it. She didn't put any thought into it or address the issues at hand. They retained my explanatory statement.
I had not paid the fees yet, which she thought I had. When she found that out, she wanted her letter back, which she had already given me. Apparently the letter allowed me to proceed on the basis I had already paid the fees. But since she had my notarized statement (which getting a notary here is no simple task) which she was retaining, I had no intention of walking out of there empty handed. She wanted me to pay the fees and I said I'd be happy to as soon as we agreed on how to proceed, but why would I pay the fees if she is refusing to accept my application? Accept my application and I'll pay the fees! Simple!
I told her: You wrote the letter for me. You gave it to me. I accepted it. It's mine now and no, I don't want to give it back until we find the correct path here. I asked her for my notarized statment document back. She left and disappeared, what I felt was giving me the stiff arm. So I just left again for the second time still no further ahead.
Realizing that right or wrong, I wasn't going to be winning any arguments if she felt a certain way, I waited until the 90 days in the letter was almost up, hoping that perhaps with the change in administration since my first visit, maybe someone else would be there.
Anticipating the previously mentioned obstacles about the Notices: 'See Explanatory Statements Attached', I removed them from being so obvious. Instead, I took a fine point pen and in the jurat, where it says (unless explanatory statement attached) I underlined very delicately '* explanatory statement attached with a very small * in front. And when I signed my name I also put a small * following my signature.
Surely they saw it, but didn't blink an eye this time. I made a point to tell the cashier about the letter and that they had previously retained my explanatory statement and they needed to find it to attach with the application, which she was happy to do.
Not being sure if it would be or not, I had a second original set which I kept for my records and I asked her to give me a date and time stamp or 'Received' stamp of some kind to acknowledge it, for my records. She wasn't sure she could do that and went to check She came back and said they coudn't do that but she did bring with her my application and showed me that the explanatory statement WAS in fact attached. I was happy about that.
Then she started asking me for my S.S. #. She saw this field had lines through it on my application and asked me what my number was. I said I didn't use one. She then asked if I ever applied for one. I said yes, but I don't use it for religious reasons. She asked if I had the card. I acknowedged that I had one as a kid but it's been several decades multiple continents since I've ever seen that card. She said well, we'll search our system and if it's in the system we can put the SS # on the application. If not, you will need a notarized copy of your SS card. We'll email you when the passport is ready or if we need anything else. I asked why that was so important? She said the application requires it and we need to include it. I said see pages 6-10 in my statement, that's not what the law says.
And that was it. Finally the passport was in process after 3 visits and I'll be anxious to get it, with the passport card and then do the FOIA to confirm the record in the U.S. Dept. of State.
============
Now, let me add this. I and a lot of people have been getting hung up on using the S.S. # for anything. As we learn and grow, my thinking now is that if we are in fact the secured creditor, owner, holder in due course, issuer of credit relating the THE NAME and THE NUMBER, why can't we use it when required and it serves our purposes? We sign as 'A.R.' or 'Authorized Representative' for THE NAME thereby making ourselvess distinct from the trust and why not proceed that way? Of course that would presume you've properly filed your claim against the cestui que vie trust. Think about that and let's discuss it further.
An interesting aside...the Vice Consul was a woman of Vietnamese origin.
Vice Consul = VC
A few years ago, to a lot of people 'VC' = Viet Cong.
One of life's wierd little idiosyncracies.
