Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss Two Different and Distinct Nations at the Political Forums; ONE OF THE PEOPLE OR ONE OF THE CITIZENS? The first issue to be resolved in any court proceeding is ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 12-24-2015, 10:13 PM
Igottago2's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Third cove on the right
Posts: 570
Thanks: 38
Thanked 245 Times in 174 Posts
Default Re: Two Different and Distinct Nations

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




.
__________________
"Things are going to get darker in America before a new dawn can begin (hopefully) and few are prepared for it."

And if you think this is a Democrat vs Republican issue, you haven't got a clue what's actually going on right now.

"the centralization of wealth in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with an exclusive monopoly" - Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 12-24-2015, 10:55 PM
Igottago2's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Third cove on the right
Posts: 570
Thanks: 38
Thanked 245 Times in 174 Posts
Default Re: Two Different and Distinct Nations

Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]


"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

“Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.” US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187(1956)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supreme Court: Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226:
"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."


Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, (1886) "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

"The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress." “We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122:
"the term 'citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Federal jurisdiction]

" ...must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended. . .in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government."
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct.1624(1995).

"In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial."
Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122


In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction,
“if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.”
Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 202-03



“When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
US v Will, 449 US 200,216, 101 S Ct, 471, 66 LEd2nd 392, 406 (1980) Cohens V Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5LEd 257 (1821)


When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.
Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326

JURISDICTION: NOTE: It is a fact of law that the person asserting jurisdiction must, when challenged, prove that jurisdiction exists; mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished.


“Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus.”
[U.S. v. Anderson, 60 F.Supp. 649 (D.C.Wash. 1945)]

"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings."
Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.


"In the United States the People are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the People by taking away their citizenship."
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).




"The United States District Court is not a true United States Court, established under Article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court."
Albrecht v. U.S. Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)

-------------------------------------------------


Involuntary Servitude

UNITED STATES V. KOZMINSKI, 487 U. S. 931 (1988)


“For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion.”







.
__________________
"Things are going to get darker in America before a new dawn can begin (hopefully) and few are prepared for it."

And if you think this is a Democrat vs Republican issue, you haven't got a clue what's actually going on right now.

"the centralization of wealth in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with an exclusive monopoly" - Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 12-24-2015, 10:59 PM
Igottago2's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Third cove on the right
Posts: 570
Thanks: 38
Thanked 245 Times in 174 Posts
Default Re: Two Different and Distinct Nations

Supreme Court Decisions to Support Our Freedoms
Here are some Supreme Court Decisions that you probably never heard of.


Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute;
"The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are not the law ”,
[Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261 ]


We, the People, created the governments and we did not give them the power to rule over us.


Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute;
US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187:
“Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.”


This describes our current situation

Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute;
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 749, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1469 (1970): See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 6 (1966); Empsak v. U.S., 190 (1955); and, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938):
“Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.


We cannot be tricked into giving up our un-a-lien-a-ble rights. This essentially voids most of the actions of our Congress, etc.


Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute;
United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95:
“The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar.”

The group who enacts the law must know what they have enacted. Congress is responsible for reading the bills before they are enacted.


Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute;
Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322:
“It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official - as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official - is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.”



And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.”
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (Alabama), 394 U.S. 147 (1969).








“All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process.
Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)




.
__________________
"Things are going to get darker in America before a new dawn can begin (hopefully) and few are prepared for it."

And if you think this is a Democrat vs Republican issue, you haven't got a clue what's actually going on right now.

"the centralization of wealth in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with an exclusive monopoly" - Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 12-25-2015, 08:38 AM
mr. wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,986
Thanks: 8,454
Thanked 4,893 Times in 3,310 Posts
Default Re: Two Different and Distinct Nations

I think i get the general track your on, the thing about the sovereign citizen thing that makes it difficult to work (beyond the public educational hurdles) is that that local, state and federal gov'ts will IGNORE ALL laws willy nilly and arbitrarily apply the laws that suit them or those in influence.

tax protesters are example A.
It's my understanding that those who've claimed rights under laws and rulings similar to what you've outline have had mixed results. because the Judges and Juries ignore or dismiss "the law" and rule based on assumed authority.

Those who drive withOUT gov't issued licenses are another group in line.
the rulings are arbitrary for or against them. Not to mention the overall negation of juries in traffic and other cases in general.

Also rulings over authority over "federal lands", federal park rangers authority, state and local officials, local roads, state roads etc. have been decided against the LAW but enforced by gov't authorities are various levels anyway.

Then we see those who refuse cooperate at the new unconstitutional gov't check points on the highways, and the TSA at airport, train and bus stations.
I've seen few to zero people use REAL LAW to defeat these illegal (and ineffective) searches.

Why? Well it seems to me that unconstitutional laws in the minds of authorities and the general public override any STATE, constitutional or SCOTUS legal precedent's jurisdictions or authority. ONLY the overhype perceived immediate "threats" are to be considered as a real actionable base for gov't actions WHATEVER they are. Add to that what the Cops, Judges and local "legal" habits are, and we see what REALLY HOLD SWAY on what "laws" are enforced. So basically what's academically correct is not what gov'ts ..at any level of gov't... are following through on in any consistent way at least.

Human rights for all, equal justice, logically applied constitutional law, states rights, and SCOTUS decisions be hanged.

I'm open to how to make that transition to more constitutional applications but before we even get to that level of understanding you're outlining it seems to me we should AT least be able to get people to agree on some basics but it's difficult to even get to that point.

the left wants to gut the 2nd amendment and can't really grasp the freedom of religion cluase or states rights clauses (well they get states rights if the laws are about homosexual marriage or pot).
And the right has no problem with with gutting our rights against warrentless search and seizures, cruel and unusual punishments, jailing people without due process Or even killing U.S. citizens without due process. (not to mention can't seem to see any general inconsistencies or misapplications in the applications of criminal laws)

Pointing these issues out to either side just makes them dig in or go into weird denials.
So I'm at a loss to how to make a compelling case for the HIGH level of constitutional and state law you present.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr. wonder; 12-25-2015 at 08:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
and, different, distinct, nations, two

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0