Sistine Chapel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
As I was “bobbing for apples” (reading Supreme Court case law) today, I found:
FindLaw: STURGES v. CROWNINSHIELD, 17 U.S. 122 (1819)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/17/122.html
which declares in part,
“. . . . Well was it said by a learned judge, that such freedom would be a mockery: nay, worse, it would be aggravated slavery and complicated misery! It is admitted, that the state has a right to the service of its citizens.”
I like leaping to conclusions based on minimal evidence and maximum intuition. The previous sentence from the Supreme Court inspired the following “leap” (which is not evidence of anything other than my overly-active imagination): Judging from the Court’s remarks, it appears that “citizens” of the State (of the Union) may be fiduciaries of the State who can be called by the “State”/beneficiary to provide various services and held liable if they fail to provide those services.
But, at the same time, I’m convinced by Article 1 Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas (“All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.”) that the “people” of the same State of the Union are its beneficiaries and endowed with certain rights that entitle them to service from their State/fiduciary.
The seeming contraction (between being a beneficiary and fiduciary) might be explained as follows: We may sometimes act as one of the People (beneficiaries) and at other times act as a “citizen” (fiduciary). Depending on the capacity in which we choose to act, we may be either beneficiaries of the State with rights, or fiduciaries of the State with obligations and liabilities. In one transaction, we might choose to act as one of the “people-beneficiaries” in the next transaction, we might choose to act as a “citizen-fiduciary”. In the next transaction, we might choose again to act as one of the “people-beneficiaries”.
This “leap” is somewhat confusing–but it’s not much more confusing than the 14th Amendment which declares in part, that, “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.” Thus, the 14th Amendment recognizes two forms of “citizenship”: one within the singular “United States” (provided that you’re born there and subject to its jurisdiction); the other within a State of the Union. (Believe it or not, I’m not the sole source of confusion when it comes to dealing with the “law”.)
In any case, my conclusion (that “people” act as beneficiaries while “citizens” act as fiduciaries) implies that it might be wise to claim at all times to be one of the “people” of your State of the Union rather than a “citizen”/fiduciary of “this state” and/or of “citizen”/fiduciary of the singular “United States”.
The Supreme Court continued:
“. . . . The state wants the services of its citizens, to fight its battles on the land and ocean, to cultivate its fields, to enlarge its industry, to promote its prosperity, to signalize its fame. It does not want a heartless, purposeless, mindless being—but half a man—a worse than slave; it wants a citizen, with all his worth and all his energies of body, mind and soul.”
The Supreme Court has implicitly defined a “citizen” of one of the States of the Union be a whole “man”. More, that a whole “man” (and also the “citizen” of a State of the Union) must have: 1) a body; 2) a mind ; and 3) a soul.
The presence of a “body” is evidenced by physical mass.
The presence of a “mind” is probably evidenced by an expression of intent or will
The presence of a “soul” cannot be proved, but must be accepted if a claim is made under one’s freedom of religion.
Is it possible that, while a “citizen” of a State of the Union must have a soul, that a “citizen of the United States” does not? Insofar as I’ve reported frequently on laws by which our government has defined us to be animals, it may be that as “animals,” we are presumed to be without a “soul” and thus, incapable of being one of the People or even “citizens” of a State of the Union? (Of course, without “souls” we could still be fiduciaries to the United States.)
It’s a leap, but it’s still conceivable that a “citizen” of a State of the Union is deemed to have: 1) a body; 2) a mind; and 3) a soul–while a “citizen of the United States” is deemed to have only 1) a body; and 2) a mind–but no soul. This conjecture sounds at little nutty–at first. But the more I think about it, the more possible it seems.
In any case, all this suggests that part of your identification and/or claims of political status, you might be wise to expressly declare under oath that you have: 1) a body; 2) a mind; and 3) a soul.
And where’s the harm if you make that claim? Maybe my conjecture (that citizens of a State have a soul while citizens of the United States do not) is absurd. OK–so what? How can it hurt for you to claim to have a body, mind and soul? Maybe it doesn’t help you, but if it can’t hurt, where’s the harm. And–in the improbable event that my conjecture turns out to be roughly correct–by claiming to have body, mind and soul just might provide you with some huge advantages.
If we have a “soul,” we probably can’t be an animal. The claim of having a “soul” should probably be supported by Bible verses (if any) that indicate that a fundamental difference between man and animals is that mankind have souls while animals do not. It may be that Genesis 1:26-28 differentiates between man and animals by declaring man alone to be “made in God’s image” (and thus sharing some characteristic with God that the animals do not possess) that the mysterious “image of God” might be the endowment of a soul that’s at least similar to the “soul” of God.
If so, the God-given, “unalienable Rights” declared in the “Declaration of Independence” may be attributes of our souls. Perhaps, in order to make an effective claim on those “unalienable Rights,” we might first each have to expressly claim to have a “soul“.
Again, my conjecture is based on flimsy of support: nothing but a few lines taken out of context from a Supreme Court decision–and my personal “gut”. Take it all with salt.
But let me know what you think. Do the concepts expressed in this post resonate with your “gut,” too? Do you have evidence to support or refute my conjecture?
Your knowledge and input could be crucial to determining the validity of what might be a very important concept.
Harry
July 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM
What manner of man are you?
Are you a man created in God’s image or are you the “man” defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th edition? They do not appear to me to be identical.
Man. 1. An adult male. 2. Humankind – Also termed mankind. 3. A human being. 4 A vassal; a feudal tenant. Black”s 7th
Are you a “human being?” Are you a feudal tenant? If you are then you are a nothing more than a primate. No such “man” was created by God. The “man” He created was created equally free and independent and above the primate. In fact this “man” named the animals including the primates. This man, freely born is not a “human being who is a vassal or feudal tenant.
I cannot find the word “human,” “being” or “human being” defined in the Law Dictionaries yet a “natural person” is defined in these law dictionaries as being a “human being.” Why would the Law Dictionaries define a natural persons as a human being and then fail to define for us what a human being is? How can we KNOW what a person IS until we first come to KNOW what a “human being IS? Were these definition left out of the law dictionaries because they did not want us to KNOW that a human being/natural person is a vassal or feudal tenant?
.
Did God define the man He created to be a “human being” or a “natural person?”
HUMAN. noun. A bipedal PRIMATE mammal (Homo sapiiens): MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs Webster’s New World Edition
Vassal. noun The grantee of a fief, feud, or fee; a feudal tenant CF FREEMAN
Freeman. 1. A PERSON who possesses and enjoys all the civil and political rights belonging to the PEOPLE under a free government. 2. A PERSON who is not a slave. 3. A MEMBER of a municipal corporation (a city or borough) who possesses full civic rights, esp. the right to vote. 4. An ALLODIAL LANDOWNER. CF VASSAL
What status of freeman are you? An “allodial landowner?” Or, are you the manner of man who is referred to as a “human being” who is a “feudal tenant?”
A human being may not have been created by operation of law, but this natural person/human being is still an entity or person who is nothing more than the highest form of primate. There is your “or other animal.” .
Entity. An organization (such as a business or governmental unit) that has a LEGAL IDENTITY apart from its members. Black’s 7th.
Human being and natural person are the titles for entities created by operation of law. An “individual” denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word and that it may, in proper cases, INCLUDE ARTIFICIAL PERSONS..
So, when a statute applies to a Person and Person is defined to include partnerships, associations, corporations as well as individual how can know if this individual is a natural person or artificial person?
A human being or natural person is simply a single person/human being that has a legal identity. You can have an artificial person but you cannot have an artificial man. Nevertheless, the “man” who is a primate is not the “man” created by God was never described to be a feudal tenant. In fact the spiritual man is under the Law of Liberty.
The distinction between the man defined in the Bible and the man defined in the law dictionary came to me in a paper passed to me on which the author did not identiiy himself. I thank him for pointing out the fact that the “human being” type man is or could be presumed to be a feudal tenant rather than an allodial landowner/freeman.
Adask
July 8, 2012 at 7:32 PM
As I’ve said and written for at least six years, I am a man made in God’s image (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights (as per the “Declaration of Independence”).
Harry
July 8, 2012 at 8:58 PM
I know what manner of man you claim to be. The question was general in nature. The point I was attempting to make was the “feudal tenant” nature of the “man” defined in the Law Dictionaries is quite different from “man” created by God free and independent and point out the importance of establishing your true birthright status and estate.
Status means legal relationship but it also means “estate” because it signifies the CONDITIONS and CIRCUMSTANCES in which you STAND with regard to your property.
I suspect that the “primate” type man (i.e. the human being/natural person type) is in a CONDITION wherein he cannot own property absolutely and I suspect that when a transaction takes place, due to his condition and circumstances that a “constructive trust” will be raised by construction of law and he will only have “conditional” ownership of his property. Ownership is absolute or conditional.
A “constructive trust” is raised by construction of law, as distinguished from an express trust.
Whenever the CIRCUMSTANCE of a transaction are such that the PERSON [i.e. this primate human being/natural person type man] who takes the legal ESTATE in property CANNOT also ENJOY the BENEFICIAL interest without necessarily violating some establish principle of equity, the court will immediately raise a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, and fasten it upon the conscience of the legal owner, so as to CONVERT him into a TRUSTEE for the parties who in equity are entitled to the beneficial enjoyment.
ENJOYMENT. The exercise of a right.
What established principle of equity would be violate IF a “human being” type man takes the legal estate in property? Could it be that because the earth is the Lord’s and and the fullness thereof and that He granted to the “man” He created DOMINION over the animals, to include the primates? Was it not the man He created who was to OCCUPY until His return. Did He not give the land to us as an inheritance? Did the man He created not actually name the animals, to include the primates.
This “primate” type human being has no lawful right to the beneficial interest of something that was granted to someone else. I don’t know if this is close to what is going on here but I can’t think of anything that fits any better what we are all experiencing today.
We are listed on our deed to be “tenants of the entirety.” A man cannot be both lord and tenant over the same tenement. Maxim
You may KNOW what manner of man you are but I suspect that the presumption is that you are the manner of man defined in the law dictionaries and, as such, you may only hold a legal title to property as a trustee for the “mystery one” who holds the equitable estate – i.e. the equitable owner/beneficiary who in equity is entitle to the beneficial interest. Could the real man created by God be the ONE who is entitled to the beneficial estate?
Does your property real or personal belong to the real man created by God and when the primate man i.e. “legal entity” actually appropriates the property of another to his own beneficial use and enjoyment a direct conversion takes place? If I understand this correctly that is exactly what is taking place. I stand to be corrected. The remedy cannot be in a common law court because the common law is not competent to handle equitable relationships.
” … every taxpayer is a cestui qui trust having sufficient interest in the preventing abuse of the TRUST to be recognized in the field of this court’s prerogative jurisdiction … In RE. Bolens (1912), 135 N.W,. 164
WHAT TRUST? Could it be that “constructive trust” that the court raised and fastened upon your conscience when a transaction to purchase property took place? You know the trust that CONVERTED YOU into a TRUSTEE for the one who holds the equitable estate and beneficial interest in the property? The one who in EQUITY is entitle to the beneficial interest.
I am an old man so what do I know? In any case that’s my take on it and I am sticking with it until someone comes up with something better. You cannot have the absolute estate in land if the county can take it from you for not paying the tribute tax. As it is written: “The diligent shall bear rule but the slothful shall be under tribute. Taxes are not penalties, they are contributions. When one is compelled to con-tribute they are under tribute and the tax they pay is a tribute tax. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Thanks for the conversation.
Can the estates be merged? Yes. And when they are the trust no longer exists.
Yartap
July 8, 2012 at 9:07 PM
I, too, am not sure about to differences in type of citizen. But, in reading the Supreme Court, it seems as if the state or government is calling upon a Rightist Man. Now, we are warned to not allow anyone to destroy our soul. I recall these verses to note: “Behold, all souls are mine (God’s):” Ezekiel 18:4, and the verse known as the Greatest Commandment, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.” Mark 12:30. Mark correlates very well with the call for Mind, Body and Soul.
Is the government calling for my substance (Mind, Body & Soul) to be loyal to an obedient Godly government or a disobedient government? Only a Sovereign in God’s image could make that decision. Or is the government trying to replace God?
Anon4fun
July 8, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Big Al said: ‘Judging from the Court’s remarks, it appears that “citizens” of the State (of the Union) may be fiduciaries of the State who can be called by the “State”/beneficiary to provide various services and held liable if they fail to provide those services.’
I agree. The people created the State as their fiduciary. If the State has rights (e.g. “to the service of its citizens”), they are endowed to it by its creators, the people. In turn, the State created certain capacities like citizen and so forth for its own benefit. The term “civil rights” is a translation of “ius civis” used in ancient Rome, meaning the rights of citizens.
Big Al said: ‘The claim of having a “soul” should probably be supported by Bible verses (if any) that indicate that a fundamental difference between man and animals is that mankind have souls while animals do not.’
There is no such verse in the Bible, to my knowledge. The common Western notion of the soul is from Greek philosophy. The Biblical use of “soul” (in English translation) means either physical or mental animation, both of which animals also have.
Yartap said: “Or is the government trying to replace God?”
Those who have usurped the government are trying to replace God. Unsurprisingly, they are trying it in other ways too, in a multi-pronged attack. For example: the medical mafia, GMO food, the infotainment Matrix, the swallowing by the financial sector of the productive economy, etc.
Richard
September 26, 2012 at 4:46 PM
[Soul - The intellectual principle. That which determines a man, as contrasted with an animal which has no intellectual soul. St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, I, q.76, a.l., states:
"The nature of each thing is shown by its operation. Now the proper operation of man is to understand; because he thereby surpasses all other animals . . . Man must therefore derive his species from that which is the principle of the operation. But the species of anything is derived from its form. It follows, therefore, that the intellectual principle is the proper form of a man." A soul is a spritual being. As such it cannot be too dependent upon matter. Since that is true, it follows that it need not be destroyed with the destruction of the body. Since it is not subject to dissolution, the soul is said to be intrinsically and naturally immortal.]
Source: Encyclopedic Dictionary of the The New American Bible (Catholic)
Don’t get me wrong, I abhor the catholic so called “universal” church as the synagogue of satan. A short review of their 1,753 so-called Codes of Cannon Law (1983) will make a thinking man/woman puke. I use it as a reference manual/book of law, with a very large grain of salt. For example, Ezekiel 18:4 states ["For all lives are mine; the life of the father is the life of the son, both are mine; only the one who sins shall die."]
palani
July 9, 2012 at 6:59 AM
A “person” is a consequence of 1) words (as in libel or slander or articulating a right), 2) an action (such as bank robbery or being caught without the proper privilege/license from the state for that activity) and 3) representation (as in selecting an agent to act on your behalf and in your name or a corporation which can only act through representation). A “person” does not exist until one of these three things produces it. Ref. Hobbes Leviathan Ch XVI. If you choose to not appear (by words, actions or representations) then the maxim requires that you be regarded as not existing although it is not YOU that does not exist but rather on of the elements required to make you the “person” required to appear.
Man’s law requires that rights and duties be assigned to these “persons”. Think about it. The only way to establish a right is by asserting it as an action or a word or having someone else do it for you (the role established for a lawyer or congressman).
“Freeman. 1. A PERSON who possesses and enjoys …”
A “citizen” is one who asserts a right or privilege and who establishes by doing so a duty to perform in a particular manner. Engaging in a contract establishes both rights and duties for each “person” who participates in the contract. A lunatic cannot buy bread for himself even though he has money enough to pay for the purchase. A rule of law prevents his concluding the act. The lunatic is prevented from acting as a “person”. The same is true with one with the status of “slave”. To engage in contracts require sui juris status … in other words to create a “person” requires the same status. Women under coverture were enable to engage in contracts as well. They were unable to create a “person”. Society convinced them that this was a subservient status rather than a superior status and for the past 100 years they have been fighting for the right to be represented and to engage in contracts but I doubt if many have taken the time to consider the duties while fighting for the rights.
palani
July 9, 2012 at 7:01 AM
ooops .. type .. last paragraph should say “unable to engage in contracts” rather than “enable”.
Harry
July 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM
You could say then that a man is not actually a person, but rather a man has or acquires a person depending upon the rights and duties ascribed to him by operation of law in any given legal relationship with another. Therefore, a man may have many persons depending on the situation and the circumstance and conditions of the legal relationship.
For instance a man when engaged in conversation or some activity with his son is acting in the person of father and under such circumstances he has certain rights and duties in respect to this legal relationship. Under different circumstance when engaged in conversation or some activity with his father, he would be acting in the person or capacity of a son with different rights and duties or responsibilities in that legal relationship, and so on. So, when it comes to a man’s status would you agree that it is the rights and duties ascribed to a man by operation of law under the circumstances at hand that determine his status, state or condition in that relationship?
As we should know it is the rights, duties, capacities and in-capacities which DETERMINE a PERSON to a given CLASS OF PERSONS so status is the legal relation of the individual to the rest of the COMMUNITY aka corporation aka body politic. It is well to note that this legal PERSONAL relationship, is not temporary in its nature nor terminable at the mere will of the parties, with which third PERSONS and STATE are concerned. The word “status” also mean “estate” because it signifies the CONDITION and CIRCUMSTANCE in which the MAN stands with regard to his property. In short, is he a man created by God or the man who is in the class of mammals known as primates. I am thinking that the primate class of man is in the class of persons know as “feudal tenants” and therefore cannot own property absolutely. The state is the lord of the fee and the legal owner is the feudal tenant. My deed identifies me and my wife as “tenants of the entirety.” One cannot be a tenant and lord over the same tenement, can he? The lord does not pay a tribute tax to himself. Only strangers pay the tribute tax.
It’s not just what manner of man are you it is also what manner of PERSON are you in any given situation UNDER the conditions and circumstance in which you are standing?
Now when a man is born it is acknowledged that he is born equally free and independent with all other men so born. As such he is endowed with certain rights inherent in himself which rights are indefeasible.or unalienable. Of course he cannot enjoy this freedom until he reaches the age of majority at which point he is presumed to be sui juris with all the rights of a freeman. But, there are different status of freemen who have different civil rights, one type of which is NOT CONNECTED with the organization and administration of government. This type of freeman is known as an allodial proprietor or landowner. The ownership of his piece of land has been allocated to him absolutely without the society or the government having any ownership or legal right therein, unlike common property. On this land the absolute owner can exercise full lawful control.
Land is simple an empty space. It has no value and cannot be bought, sold or traded as a thing of value. It is GRANTED to the whole chain of title when it is GRANTED to the first grantee on the original land patent. If the land has no value what are they assessing and taxing? Why do you only have the “use” of the land while the state has the equitable title and beneficial interest?
Having a person is not a problem if you are not the person liable for taxes and regulation beyond what you are willing to consent to. You must consent to be taxed. It is my understanding that the government can only regulate and tax that which EXISTS by its authority or its permission. The man created by God does not exist by the authority of man’s government. Of course one can contract or consent to be taxed and therefore must pay the tax when it is requested. The contract makes the law in that legal contract relationship.
Let me ask you, is it possible to exist within the exterior limits of a jurisdiction as a free inhabitant thereof and still have civil rights that are recognized by the government and protected by law that you can enjoy without becoming a citizen “member” of a body politic? Such a man would not necessarily be stateless if his citizenship was in heaven. The Kingdom has come on earth, has it not. As a citizen of that Kingdom I am always standing in that Kingdom no mater my geographic location on this earth. At least that is how I see it. Again I stand to be corrected
palani
July 9, 2012 at 10:07 AM
I found an interesting study concerning alloidal title as used in the Wisconsin constitution here … http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=provisions%20of%20the%20wisconsin%20constitution&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Flegis.wisconsin.gov%2Flc%2Fpublications%2Flca%2Flca_2003_01.pdf&ei=uPL6T6jRO-eK2QW4tunABg&usg=AFQjCNG6pMohqmItJaSwbDLFrTEFDyqvyQ&cad=rja
It seems in the transfer of title, alloidal refers to feudal tenures.
Harry
July 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM
That is a very interesting study concerning allodial land ownership. Did you notice the it said that the owner of land in “this state” hold the same of no superior and that he has absolute dominion over the land, owing no rent service, or fealty to ANY on account thereof. Yet this allodial proprietor has an OBLIGATION OF FEALTY to the government that arises [NOT FROM HIS OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN ALLODIUM] but rather OUT OF HIS CITIZENSHIP.
It is his ‘status’ of citizenship that appears to bring the sui juris freeman back into voluntary servitude as a feudal tenant on his own land that his forefather fought and die to pass on to him.
The author of this study writes: “It is ironic that the court uses “fealty” the central duty of a feudal relationship, to describe the OBLIGATIONS of a citizen to the government.”
I don’t know why this sorry state of affairs is ironic when citizens owe a “natural allegiance” which in American law, is the allegiance due from citizens of the United States to their native country, and also from naturalized citizens, and which CANNOT be renounced WITHOUT the permission of government, to be declared by law. 2 Kent, Comm. 43-49
This natural allegiance is said to be due to the king in his POLITICAL, not his personal, capacity and so in the United States “it is a POLITICAL OBLIGATION” depending NOT ON OWNERSHIP OF LAND, but on the ENJOYMENT of the protection of government and it binds the CITIZEN to observance of all laws of his SOVEREIGN. Natural allegiance is an obligation of citizenship not ownership of land in allodium.
The PEOPLE are the sovereign but the citizens of the United States are subjects and as such they owe allegiance to their superior sovereign – the government. Allegiance is an OBLIGATION of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives. It is the tie or ligamen which binds the subject [or citizen] to the king [or government]. This allegiance consists in a true and FAITHFUL obedience of the SUBJECT due to his sovereign and is comparatively modern CORRUPTION of ligeance (ligeantia), which is derived from liege (ligius), meaning absolute or unqualified. It signified originally liege FEALTY, i.e. absolute and unqualified fealty. See: Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition definition of ALLEGIANCE
FEALTY. In feudal law. Fidelity; allegiance to the feudal lord of the manor; the feudal obligation resting upon the TENANT or VASSAL by which he was bound to be faithful and true to his lord, and render him obedience and service.
Pledging allegiance to anything is and act of faith and it binds one to the observance of all the law of the sovereign to whom one pledges their allegiance. Can a man born free and independent in a so called free county under a free government be compelled to pledge his allegiance to anyone against his will?
To prove that feudal law is in effect here we only need to realize that “Frank Tenement Law” is in effect. “Frank Tenement” is a type of tenement which existed under feudal law. It is a free tenement or a FREEHOLD. Frank tenant, is that species of frank-tenement known to the feudalists as “FREE SOCAGE” wherein the service to be performed is known and fixed, and not of a base or servile nature. In FREE SOCAGE the lord of the fee IS THE STATE ITSELF, and the service due to the :”lord” is payment of the taxes upon the real estate. See: http://www.uslegal.com definition for Frank Tenement Law & Legal Definition
I would be please to discuss this land ownership/status issue privately with anyone who is interested . The services to government is paying the tribute tax to the citizens’ sovereign and it has nothing to do with the ownership of land. It is based on the CITIZENS’ obligation of fealty to his sovereign in consideration of the protection that the sovereign renders to the citizen.
Can a man give up the government benefits to avoid the correlating tribute tax duty? Better yet, can a man be compelled to ACCEPT a benefit against his will?
Adask
July 9, 2012 at 12:35 PM
So far as I can see, the whole system operates on the presumption that we have VOLUNTARILY agreed to enter and play under the rules of “this state”. If that’s true, then if we can learn how to effectively express our will that we have not “voluntarily” agreed to be subject to the rules of “this state,” we may be able to avoid “this state”.
Harry
July 9, 2012 at 1:15 PM
I suspect that the PRESUMPTION is that every one is a PERSON who is a citizen of the United States federal government aka a federal citizen who is a resident within a state.
If citizenship is MEMBERSHIP in a body politic how does one become a member? My experience in becoming a member of any organization was that I first was required to submit an application to become a member.
Did we unknowing apply to become a citizen member of a body politic or are we simply presumed to be members? Did we make a mistake when we applied to join if we did apply for membership? If we did make a mistake do we not have a moral duty to correct our mistake?
The question is: how do we peacefully and lawfully correct our mistake or the record if we honestly made one in applying for US citizenship OR how do we rebut the false presumption that we are citizens of the United States when we are in fact merely autochthons or natives?
Jeff D.
July 16, 2012 at 8:05 PM
Al, you asked how we can express our will to avoid “this state”.
I think we should do as Dennis Craigs has done and file papers with our respective county and state governments.
It appears that in order to have our sovereign rights secured, we need to give some formal notice and/or publishing.
It has been said that ignorance to the law is no defense. Governments have made public notices to new laws and maintain publicly accessible databases.
Unless we give notice of our sovereignty, perhaps through the local press and in conjunction with filing formal written papers declaring such to our county and state clerks to register and deposit within databases, we will be forced to establish ourselves each time when needed.
Richard
September 26, 2012 at 7:34 PM
A good argument could be made “to avoid the correlating tribute tax” and also repudiate the compelled benefit of the “services” of government (a business as per DUNS #, EIN, incorporation, statute, etc.) by identifying those state supreme court and SCOTUS wherein the “Duty to Protect” is addressed. And I repeat “repudiate”.
A review of those cases reveals, absent a contract between you and the local thugs/criminals [police] specifically addressing your protection (by them), there is no duty to protect. I repeat no duty to protect.
Therefore there is no “natural allegience” due. No “political obligation” (legal duty). Summing it up, no duty to obey “their” laws. So long as we don’t damage someones property, harm someone, or commit fraud in our contracts.
palani
July 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM
“Let me ask you, is it possible to exist within the exterior limits of a jurisdiction as a free inhabitant thereof and still have civil rights that are recognized by the government and protected by law that you can enjoy without becoming a citizen “member” of a body politic.”
The Articles of Confederation, the Louisiana Purchase, the treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo all recognize the status of “inhabitant”. They all fail to fully define the status though. Another synonym for “inhabitant” is “autochthon”. The maxim points out though that things that are similar are not the same. I would prefer to class my status as autochthon rather than inhabitant because I can then control the definition (controlling definitions is a sovereign act).
I believe the government(s) currently in power like to assign misdemeanors or felonies to people to prevent them from claiming privileges as “inhabitants”. They would much rather assign the duties of “criminal” to people who prefer to not participate in government.
I carry a challenge coin that identifies my status with respect to the United States. It serves to identify me by my possession of the coin. I designed it. I had it made. By anyone’s definition I created it. It is my property and it does create a person with both rights and duties when shown.
Harry
July 11, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Palani’s question: Is it possible to exist within the exterior limits of a jurisdiction as a free inhabitant thereof and still have civil rights that are recognized by the government and protected by law that you can enjoy without becoming a citizens “member” of a body politic.
I say yes.
There appears to be different types of civil rights one of which type is NOT CONNECTED with the organization and administration of government and this type of civil rights belongs to inhabitants as well as citizens OF a state.
Another type of “civil rights” appertain to a PERSON in virtue of his citizens IN a state or community. AND finally,
there is a type of “civil rights” secured by the 13th & 14th Amendments to “citizens of the United States.” This legal definition of “civil rights” in Black’s Law Dictionary is evidence of the different classes of civil rights. To wit:
“Civil Rights” are such as BELONG to every citizen OF the state or country, or, in a wider sense, to ALL its INHABITANTS, and are NOT CONNECTED WITH THE ORGANIZATION or ADMINISTRATION of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, PROTECTION BY THE LAWS, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc. Winnett v. Adams, OR, as OTHERWISE DEFINED, civil rights are rights APPERTAINING TO a PERSON in virtue of his citizenship IN a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action [AND THEN "civil rights" is] ALSO a term APPLIED [not belonging or appertaining] to rights secured to citizens of the United States by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution, and by various acts of congress made in pursuance thereof. State of Iowa v. Railroad Co. See: Rights @ natural rights in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition for the above definition.
The source of the civil rights secured to federal citizens is the United States Congress. The other civil rights have as their source our Creator.
Things that are similar are not the same and things that are the same are not necessarily identical. Citizens of the United States have the SAME rights to hold property as do “white citizens” but they do not have the “identical” right.
Federal citizenship. Rights and obligations accruing by reason of being a citizens of the United States. State or STATUS of being a citizens of the United States, A PERSON born or naturalized in the the United States AND SUBJECT [i.e. COMPLETELY SUBJECT] to the jurisdiction thereof. Black’s 6th This definition is not in Black’s 4th.
One who is completely subject to a jurisdiction is a complete and absolute “subject?”
Citizenship is a term of municipal law and carries with it the idea of CONNECTION or identification with the state and a participation in its functions, and as such IMPLIES much more than residence.
Everyone appears to be presumed to be 14th amendment subject/citizens of the United States federal government connected to or identified with the federal government.
palani
July 11, 2012 at 6:06 PM
“Citizenship is a term of municipal law ”
The District of Columbia is a municipality. A municipality is required to attach territory. The D of C did not exist under the Articles and was only necessary because Virginia gave up the NW Territory.
The several states have no individual means to obtain territory. They are prohibited from contracting (treaties) and they cannot wage war. These are the only ways they can increase their territorial holdings.
Each of the several states occupy a plane. The federal government operates in a plane. Which of these (or others that might be conceived) you are found in establishes which laws you are subject to. Possibly the habeas corpus is the way to remove yourself from the evils of one plane to the jurisdiction of another. Possibly a miscellaneous evidence file in the federal building might be the method to vacate the federal plane.
A woman Created In His Image
July 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM
This is so interesting! To better help me comprehend this further, I’d appreciate some of your inputs on this. From what I can comprehend from all of this, is that I never asked to be given a “person”, did you? According to scriptures, man is given dominion over the earth and everything in it or what is produced from it, right? If the Creator OWNS it ALL, including us, all the gold/silver, the earth,etc…….what makes us “think” we can OWN anything here if everything here already has an OWNER?
Can it merely be that all we truly have here is usage of all of creation equally, not ownership?
That the only true OWNER/SOVEREIGN if you will is God, and God alone, and He gave us everything we could ever need here without charging us for it?
Is there REALLY such a thing of paying something off or do we merely exchange debt/sin with others?
When we labor and give all our energy to this system so that it can in turn, turn all our energy/labor into credit for its use, are we actually exchanging value (our labor/energy) for something of like value at the time, or do we receive paper that belongs to another and is nothing more than debt?
Who told us that what man offers (mans laws, rules, regulations, statutes, codes, prisons, etc.) were a better choice than the kingdom that God. What did the Christ come to do if not to set us free, to give us life and that more abundantly? Are we settling for mammon, paper, debt/sin, and all the terror, sorrow, and despair it creates for many of us today? Has it ever crossed our minds that EVERYTHING has already been prepaid and made here has been with OUR HANDS, OUR LABOR/ENERGY?
Unless we learn that all we have here is love and forgiveness of one another and forgiveness of debts/sin, we may never really see a change, for it is in MAN’s (men/women) heart that MUST be changed to rely on the giver of life and Him alone. Until man realizes that all belongs to the Creator and that this WHOLE system is an exact reflection of our hearts, there may not be much of a future for our children. We must remember who and what we are, not what someone says we are, not a fiction that belongs to the state/STATE and that was never meant for us to claim. Still think you OWN the legal fiction….try asking for the original title since you believe your the owner of it and see if they give it to you? I did, and was told that it belongs to the state, every child receives one when they are born…….but they DO NOT REGISTER PEOPLE! That states a lot, but we are a stubborn bunch aren’t we?
May we learn to live here as peaceful men/women, not belligerents. Asking forgiveness of one another and also of those who believe themselves to be in authority over another man/woman. We must start correcting their presumptions and asking that they prove their claims and give them time to correct their mistakes. They are our brothers and sisters, and God allows the rain to come down on the wicked AND the good, the sun to warm the unrighteous and the righteous. He alone will do the separation at His will, not us. We are to owe no man anything except to love one another, for if we do, we have fulfilled the law. Scripture also tells us no to be one of those, who makes pledges or one of those who are sureties for debts. When Jesus died, it was finished……………but we have forgotten.
In love
Adask
July 10, 2012 at 11:06 AM
I started to reply to the previous comment. The comment grew and I liked it enough to post it as an article entitled “A Respecter of Persons”.
Harry
July 10, 2012 at 7:39 PM
The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof BUT He gave the man he created dominion or complete ownership over the animals AND “over all the earth.”
When you read the commandment that says you shall not steal does it not presuppose that some things are yours and some things are mine. If every one on the earth had only a collective use of every thing then how could any one possibly steal any thing from any one else, since no one owned any thing in his own right that any one else could steal? What’s your is mine and what is mine is yours ,as far as the use of it is concerned. If I want to use what you are presently using I can just take it for my own use and you could not complain because I have as much right to its use as do you. I can’t see such an idea ever working knowing human nature.
DOMINION. Ownership, or right to property or perfect or complete property or ownership. Title to an article of property which arises from the power of disposition and the right of claiming it. Sovereignty or lordship. Black’s 4th.
Of course the ultimate ownership of every thing is in the Lord and when He returns our occupation/ownership of things will end. At least that is how I see it at this point in time.
Jeff D of the State of Illinois
July 19, 2012 at 5:07 PM
Al, I think a way to eliminate the presumption of people voluntarily agreeing to be subject to “this State” is through a legal notice or publication through the local press.
We should do as Dennis Craig has done and file paperwork with the county clerk and state clerk offices.
Publicly available databases of laws, et cetra, are maintained by government. If no record of sovereign status exists, then it must be made at each necessary occurrence.
Richard
September 26, 2012 at 6:53 PM
To: Harry re: July 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM
Your comment: “It is my understanding that the government can only regulate and tax that which EXISTS by its authority or its permission”. You’ve addressed that premise well. I would like to add the following:
As it pertains to contracts and consent. All law operates by contract.
On Consent: From the Declaration of Independence, aka The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America; “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Thus we see that operation of “government” requires consent of the governed.
Regarding citizenship in heaven and the Kingdom that has come on earth: That would properly be “The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth”. As a sovereign political power holder, said kingdom would be your “permanent address”. Ideally, “to be called for in General Delivery as a postal patron of the general Post Office”.
Richard
September 26, 2012 at 7:11 PM
To: Harry re: July 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM
In additional response to your question:
. . . “is it possible to exist within the exterior limits of a jurisdiction as a free inhabitant thereof and still have civil rights that are recognized by the government and protected by law that you can enjoy without becoming a citizen “member” of a body politic?”
Nation. A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty. Montoya v. U.S., 180 U.S. 261. Black’s 6th.
Note: ” . . . and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.”
Harry
September 26, 2012 at 8:07 PM
To Richard re: Sept. 9, 2012 at 7:11
Also the word “citizen” MAY include membership in a body politic, And, keep in mind that there are “civil rights” that are not CONNECTED with the organization and administration of government. See “civil rights” definition in Black’s 4th
And as for “private property” the term is defined a http://www.legal-explainations.com as follows:
Private Property noun – It is a system to allocate the ownership of pieces of land to particular people [not persons], who exercise full control on it without [i.e. outside] the society or the government having any ownership or legal right unlike common property.
“Allegiance is, as it were, the essence of the law; it is the BOND OF FAITH.” Coke
Citizenship in the United States is a political obligation and does not depend on the ownership of land. Today the obligation of FEALTY to the government is an obligation arising out of his citizenship status. See: Ferguson v. Mason (1864) Notice the court’s use of the word “fealty” in this case.
MickeyG
October 30, 2012 at 6:45 AM
If you have ever claimed to be a United States citizen, then the federal government will take you at your word. That means you were born or natualized in the United States, AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. The second part of that sentance is why you must obey them. The territorial jurisdiction of the United States does not extend into the several states. Title 18 section 7.
Rayman
January 7, 2013 at 7:26 PM
Thanks for this great tutorial, very informative. I wrote some down to keep following these guidelines. Thanks again