The Office of Citizen

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

As I stated earlier, it is a 'private office' which has the capacity to function in the 'public' without any danger of intervention by those 'public ministers/officers'.

Thanks for the update Jerry I will look at your previous posts a little later when I get back home tonight.

P.S. A country named Florida is the land I first stood on when I came into this world, hence the username Jeagas is the name of the tribe that were the first known inhabitants of that southern territory 1000 B.C. to 1700 A.D.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Some people seem determined to ride Frankfurter's metaphor to the bitter end.

Especially those Supreme Court Justices that propagate such diabolical remarks. They should be removed from office for having made such comments. I mean after all, that would be a misrepresentation of fact, and would be grounds for Judicial reprisal against anyone making such remarks, especially when such remarks made by those men and or women (whichever gender decides to repeat it again) would create an embarrassment to the Judiciary.

In fact, allow me to make another such quotation by a Supreme Court Justice:

"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good
or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is
contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds
contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto
himself."

- Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

And to which still no authority agrees with...

Are you suggesting that a US Supreme Court Justice, whose office is held on a 24/7/365 basis (with exception to authorized vacation time) has no authority?

With regard to the 24/7/365 aspect. I worked for the County at one time, and it was made manifestly clear to all the employees that their position was 24/7/365.. meaning that even though they were 'off duty', they were still 'on duty' and subject to 'call in' at any given instance. This why in the Judicial Code of Ethics it plainly states that the judges must abstain from any appearance of impropriety in any of their activities (both private and public)... this is why those officials have to make reports of any gifts that they receive.. etc.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Jerry Carlos

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

This is where your brain damage really does not serve you. You think someone should be removed from office for voicing an opinion in their private writing and doings?

What are you, a Nazi fag?

Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and Supreme Court Officers should also have the freedom to develop opinions and share them.

You are such a legal twit. You run around and act like there is no difference between actions taken in office and out of office. Of course with your idiotic view that "Citizen" is an office I can see where your confusion could begin to mount.

Maybe someone can knock the sense back into you. Good luck Lumpy.

You should be very careful of your slanderous and libelous remarks Cody James Roberts of California design. You especially are not immune from the ill effects of the law. Though you may think you are. You are treading where you should not.

Jerry Carlos Pitts

Chairperson, Florida J.A.I.L.4Judges (PAC)

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

But the same justices opinion outside of a case is good as gold, huh?

Just when I thought MRG could not show more redarded behavior he pulls out the defense of using out of court opinions by stating that in court opinions are a crock!

You sure helped out Jerry's lame and argument and showed me my place.

So lets all take MRG's new research strategy... What justices say off the bench and in private is law, what they say in office on the bench is a crock.

Works for me. MRG now that you have taught me how to be as stupid as you are, can you please teach me how to be a poor, unsuccessful loser, like yourself, as well?

I don't recall anyone saying anything about whether or not the judges remarks 'off bench' would be construed as law. That is the conclusion that you have drawn.

What is a fact is the following, a judge has to be very certain that any of his actions, on or off the bench, do not create any appearance of impropriety:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/leg...rts/index.html

"February 17, 2007
Approved ABA Judicial Code Finally Retains 'Appearance of Impropriety' Ban As Enforceable Rule

Posted by Alan Childress

The dizzying redrafts and non-final "final" versions of the new ABA Model Code for judges (our prior posts here and here) finally led to media scrutiny and criticism and the resignation of one committee member in protest to what he perceived to be a weakening of the code. But the final, really final action taken--approval of a draft retaining the "appearance of impropriety" standard as an enforceable rule within the actual text of new Rule 1.2--became something of a fizzle to the controversy, as the vote sounded fairly unanimous and the meeting and debate did not drag on (possibly aided by the bad recent publicity and the need to get out of Miami ahead of the weather). This as helpfully reported by the ABA Journal's on-line story Friday, "Judging Judicial Ethics: ABA House Retains Ban on 'Appearance of Impropriety.' "

From another source:
"Rule 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary) states: “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”"

"April 14, 2007
Injudicious Behavior

A county circuit court judge was suspended without pay for 30 days by the Oregon Supreme Court. The judge repeatedly admonished defense counsel in a criminal trial both in and out of the presense of the jury,Overgaveled improperly limited her cross-examination of a prosecution witness, and by "words, expression and tone of voice" indicated bias and prejudice against counsel. After he declared a mistrial on his own motion, the judge attempted to undermine the defendant's confidence in counsel and encouraged the defendant to discharge her. The judge had a prior admonishment for similar behavior. (Mike Frisch)" http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/leg...rts/index.html

May 22, 2007
Another Unfit Judge

The Alaska Supreme Court recently censured a judge of the District Court for the State of Alaska based on a stipulation that the judge had (1) pre-signed bail orders and made the documents available to prosecutors to fill in the blanks; (2) allowed speedy trial times to lapse, resulting in dismissals of "a significant number of criminal cases;" (3) engaged in improper ex parte communications and gave preferential treatment to a defendant in a case where he should have recused himself; and (4) made inappropriate sexual comments to female court employees in the workplace.

The judge had vacated his judicial office and agreed not to seek or hold any such position in the future. The matter can be revived if he does seek such office. The written censure was deemed sufficient -- he does not need to personally appear to have the censure administered. (Mike Frisch)

May 22, 2007 in Judicial Ethics and the Courts | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Shoonra]

Although LB attributes the quotation about "office of citizen" to Brandeis, the overwhelming number of entries on the internet attribute it to Felix Frankfurter.

Does anyone know exactly where this appears in either man's writing?? Was it from a court decision or a commencement address?

And while we're at it, has any other court or legal authority made mention of such an "office" ?

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Although LB attributes the quotation about "office of citizen" to Brandeis, the overwhelming number of entries on the internet attribute it to Felix Frankfurter.

Does anyone know exactly where this appears in either man's writing?? Was it from a court decision or a commencement address?

And while we're at it, has any other court or legal authority made mention of such an "office" ?

Why on earth are you and Littlebrother trying so desparately to make this statement of a judge into an existing 'judge made law'? No-one has said that it was 'law', but rather, the quote is an opinion from a Judge, and whether or not it was made from the bench, at a commencement ceremony, or a public toilet where bystanders (knowing who was in the toilet) heard him say it, makes not one bit of difference. A judge is on 'duty' 24/7/365, in public, in private, or where ever.

Point being, if the comment were inappropriate for the judge to say, then the judge should have been sanctioned by the judiciary committee. But because they did not sanction him, but rather sat idly by and allowed the comment to stay on the public record for such a long period of time, then the public has accepted his comments as truth in law, and the judiciary has silently acquiesced to the standing that the TRUTH was spoken.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

But the same justices opinion outside of a case is good as gold, huh?

Just when I thought MRG could not show more redarded behavior he pulls out the defense of using out of court opinions by stating that in court opinions are a crock!

You sure helped out Jerry's lame and argument and showed me my place.

So lets all take MRG's new research strategy...

What justices say off the bench and in private is law, what they say in office on the bench is a crock.

Works for me.

MRG now that you have taught me how to be as stupid as you are, can you please teach me how to be a poor, unsuccessful loser, like yourself, as well?

Now you must resort to presuming to put words into my mouth, little man?

Pretty low, even for you.

This nonsense means that much to you?

Redarded?

You can't even write at a fourth grade level.

That is one of the most pathetically maudlin posts I have ever seen.

That is far beyond whimpering and whining.

That is the best you can do?

Where's your "brian?"

keep looking for your "brian," it's bound to be in there somewhere.

[aksis]

Ambassador Jerry Carlos;

I still can't recognize it as a "private" office.

By nature, that is a public person that is created in the Constitution for the United States at Article 1, Section 2... it is a person of a "political corporation" which is a type of "public" corporation.

You, the private man, are not the person (which I am sure you know). The person of the US citizen is a public office that you can use to function in the public.

You obviously are not that person.

Perhaps people should quit using their citizenship 24/7 and doing all manner of private activities in office.

Doing anything in the office of citizen (or as any other US person) makes one subject to the jurisdiction of the United States... it is the only way one can be "in the United States" anyways.

This explains why people are being summoned to appear in person before administrative hearings... like any employees or officers would be.


Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes


P.S.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Although LB attributes the quotation about "office of citizen" to Brandeis, the overwhelming number of entries on the internet attribute it to Felix Frankfurter.

Shoonra;

FYI, I came across that quote after I did my own research and finding of facts. I don't know much about Felix Frankfurter other then that he was a supreme Court justice.

It is simply a statement of fact. I came to the same conclusion as Felix (as did many others) by simply using a little common sense and a review of the organic definitions.



P.P.S.

If anyone has an account with JSTOR, there were/are some journals/articles regarding this topic published there that would be nice to have a look at... but I don't require them to support the obvious.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by aksis

Ambassador Jerry Carlos;

I still can't recognize it as a "private" office.

By nature, that is a public person that is created in the Constitution for the United States at Article 1, Section 2... it is a person of a "political corporation" which is a type of "public" corporation.

You, the private man, are not the person (which I am sure you know). The person of the US citizen is a public office that you can use to function in the public.

You obviously are not that person.

Perhaps people should quit using their citizenship 24/7 and doing all manner of private activities in office.

Doing anything in the office of citizen (or as any other US person) makes one subject to the jurisdiction of the United States... it is the only way one can be "in the United States" anyways.

This explains why people are being summoned to appear in person before administrative hearings... like any employees or officers would be.


Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

P.P.S.

If anyone has an account with JSTOR, there were/are some journals/articles regarding this topic published there that would be nice to have a look at... but I don't require them to support the obvious.

In the highlighted text above (my emphasis) you hit the nail on the head. It is much akin to the old expression of 'wearing two hats'. One for this current situation, and another for that situation involving the "public". Staying out of the 'public' is not even in the equation, as sooner or later, there is going to be the need to go to the store and purchase staples to resupply your pantry. I would agree with 'limiting' the amount of involvement with the 'public'. I believe Winston Shrout even spoke on this subject in one of his dvds. He said something to the effect of "the old timers used to place a sign on the gates of the city, advising those entering the city what the rules were. Once inside the city, you had to play by their rules. Outside of the city, the minions of the city officials would not bother you.

Another colleague of mine, envisions this whole scenario as the United States having raised itself onto a plexiglass sheet hovering above the ground (this places all government activity NOT on the land and therefore NOT acting in accord to the law of the Land). If you climb a ladder and place yourself on that plexi-glass sheet, then you have to play by their rules.

I envision that scenario just a little bit different. I envision the plexi-glass sheet belonging to the government beneath yet another plexi-glass sheet. The sheet at the higher level, being the place of abode where the Sovereigns sit and monitor the actions of the government and how the government interacts with those that are still at ground level and who are unaware of what is really happening. Those that are the sovereign are the ones that will be able to descend onto the second sheet and dictate to the government what is and what is not. So the question is not really a matter of whether the office is a 'private' or 'public' office, the more important question is whether or not you occupy the office of the incorporeal 'sovereign'.

As I stated in an earlier post. Offices are created when a man or woman move their being into a position wherein a particular function is to be accomplished. Granted, some offices have already been established via the mechanics of the secular law, while there are many untold thousands of offices that have neither been created nor established at this time. An office is not necessarily dependent upon having a geographically fixed placed wherein you conduct the affairs of that office. Example. Jesus created the office of "the Christ". He did not have that geographical location fixed by any imagination of man. His office went with Him where ever He went. His office was functional where ever He went. He performed the miracles, spread the Gospel, and did according to His Fathers' will regardless of location.

In the beginning of your note to me, I could not help but notice the acknowledgment of the 'office' I claim. My religious preference instructs me that the office is available (not only to me but to whoever would desire to hold a similar office), so I laid claim with the Sovereign, Jesus, the Christ, King of kings. He authorized the placement in this position, as there has not been any rebuttals to that position in months. Not even by the secular authorities who have witnessed and assisted in the authentication of the existence of the office. Has the office been brought into fruition at this time? No! Everything is accomplished according to the will of God and in accord with His timing. As to the claim; there is a passage of scripture wherein it is stated: "James 4

1. From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
2. Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
3. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
4. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

My office is not for the purpose of vain glory, but rather that the Glory be given to God, and His Son, Jesus the Christ. I do not seek the approval of man, nor do I desire any longer to accumulate the earthly things that so many are striving to obtain. Anything and everything that is needed for me to perform my functions on this earth are being provided. By not desiring after those possessions, I eliminate the possibility of my old state of pride leading me down a path to destruction. If God sees that I need, then He provides.

Is the office public? No. Is the office 'private'? Yes. It is privately activated between me and God. It is publicly acknowledged by the secular authorities by their actions or inactions. Perception is one of the key factors. If you perceive that the office of 'citizen' is 'public' then it will always remain 'public' but if you perceive it as being an office that God has placed you in, then it becomes a 'private' office.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.