The Office of Citizen

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Uh oh.

Looks like drooly A and drooly B con't get their story straight.

Damn don't that suck Jerry when the guy that brainwashed you still tells you that you have it all wrong?

You address entities that are at current time, unknown to me, and reference a 'story' to which I have no knowledge.

You then make further claims without substantiating evidence to support your claim. You don't even attempt to provide a link to some prior comment by these unknown entities wherein the validity of your claim can be authenticated.

You are really making yourself look bad Cody. You need to slow down a little and at least attempt to get facts straight before you attempt to expound on things that you know nothing about. All of your name-calling, slurs against the character of others, and such similar activity that you have engaged in, places the spotlight on you, but in reality, it is more like the searchlight from a police helicopter. Every time you open your mouth, the light becomes more focused on you, making it easier for the police to simply move in; surround you; and if necessary, take you by force.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Lumpy, so far off-the-bench comments from supreme court justices are the only alleged authority you have given for the existence of the office of citizen. Leave it to you to not recall.

What a twisted, sick, and perverted mind you have. Your comments above make absolutely no sense whatsoever. You must be suffering from too much CAD programming. You would probably be much better off, if you were to stick to something like drawing... it would be more at your level.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

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 simply remain in the 'state of Nature' where ever I am. I live move and have my being in God's Kingdom. To me, it's really that simple.

While some people may debate God's existence, I don't have time and simply refer them to the 'state of Nature' (or to David Merrill, who seems to enjoy the referrals ;-)...

So the presumption that I (or anyone else for that matter) "enters into the public" because of a walk from one part of Earth to another is an impossibility.... in reality.

I suppose there is no harm in "imagining" things (and it can be useful), but if one's imagination leads one to do things to others that they would not want done to them, then there are going to be problems and such action is the essence of crime. That's common sense.

Now, from what I have gathered from the various publications, entering into the employment of a corporation (or like action) is one way to be "in" the corporation.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

I would agree with 'limiting' the amount of involvement with the 'public'.

There is also the way one enters into, or the capacity in which one choose to function in/with the 'public', for example, rather then as a Citizen, it is within our inherent rights to do so in the person of an Ambassador (or the like)... or various other personas.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

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.

I find that a posting of the law of cause and effect is not required for it to function, so I don't normally do anything to anyone that I wouldn't want done to me.

What is a "city" other then a "municipal corporation", a "legal fiction"?

These corporations are not "bubbles" that one can be "in side of".... only "in the employment of".

Do employees have to follow the codes, rules and regulations? Ask their superiors...

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 51 > § 1116

(b) For the purposes of this section:
(2) “Foreign government” means the government of a foreign country, irrespective of recognition by the United States.

(3) “Foreign official” means— 
  (A) a Chief of State or the political equivalent, President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Ambassador, Foreign Minister, or other officer of Cabinet rank or above of a foreign government or the chief executive officer of an international organization, or any person who has previously served in such capacity, and any member of his family, while in the United States.

(4) “Internationally protected person” means—
(A) a Chief of State or the political equivalent, head of government, or Foreign Minister whenever such person is in a country other than his own and any member of his family accompanying him; or

(B) any other representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United States Government, a foreign government, or international organization who at the time and place concerned is entitled pursuant to international law to special protection against attack upon his person, freedom, or dignity, and any member of his family then forming part of his household.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

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.

I simply see the base reality. The state is not a "bubble" or "composed" of imaginary layers. I strive to be a realist.

The medaphors are not lost on me, but due to so many people seeming to have sucumb to, what I have at times described as, a group psychosis, I am moved to doggidly hound this point.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

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 'sovereign'.

I simply don't find calling it "private" to be in line or harmony with the diction. So you won't find me calling it this.

And the point regarding our true and correct capacity is why I didn't feel to split hairs too much on the "public" vs. "private"... it's all foreign to us anyways.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

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.

Nice points.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

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.

I have a different perspective on "Jesus" and "Christ"... which is ever growing and changing... but I can appreciate the point regarding the lifestyle and state of mind... where ever we go, there we are.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

In the beginning of your note to me, I could not help but notice the acknowledgment of the 'office' I claim.

First and foremost I recognize all Souls as the Images and Likenesses of God, created by God, and like unto Our Creator, We are sovereign.

All have all been endowed with the ability and right and power to create.

We, the Souls, created bodies. This is unarguably an integral attribute of one's sovereignty - one's "natural autonomous sovereign state" - and the Soul is the sovereign... "the King and the Land are one", and therein is the fulfillment of the quest for the Whole-I-Grail.

Now, you created this "Office" as a tool - "Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ" - I simply recognize your right of creation, and as I have no confirmation from Jesus either way, I simply see the "Ambassador"... I would say, of You, the Soul and your sovereignty (not to contradict you, I am simply clarifying what I am recognizing but not quite what you're presenting... no offence to you or our bro...).

My state has such a person as well, among others.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Anything and everything that is needed for me to perform my functions on this earth are being provided... If God sees that I need, then He provides.

Our needs, they are supplied. I find this to be true. We even get some of what we want as well.

Service is blessed. Service is love made manifest.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

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.

I don't find that God placed anyone in the "Office of Citizen". It is the creation of the ego's of men and it is the ego that imagines it, and then imagines it to be "in" this "office"... freewill.

There are always more choices then the ones presented....


Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes


P.S.

Thanks for confirming that putting Little Brother on the ignore list was a wise choice. The bulk of his posts before I listed him were just insults and baseless contradictions... seems that he remains consistent in this.

Weird how he thinks that any of you people are capable of being brainwashed... or that truth and facts can be used to do this to someone.... and all while he turns to brainwashing techniques like character assassination and repetitive baseless contradiction.

[Jerry Pitts]

Aksis/ Christopher-Theodore:

Those were all very excellent morsels to consume and to allow them to grow.

I respect the fact that you did bring forth some of the information from secular law, that I had intentionally withheld, withheld due to the fact that I was skeptical as to how well received it would be. I do not like contention in gatherings such as this, and I just plainly figured that the inclusion of that information along with much more, would be fuel for more argumentation. Thank you anyway for posting it.

I will sign off for tonight, so that I can go and do my evening worship and then meditate on the wisdom of your words.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Shoonra]

Am I the only one who notices how absurd this thread is getting?

First, there is some problem about the quotation. Some attribute it to one Justice (Brandeis) and some to another (Frankfurter). Nobody can point to its source. Even so, some people take it Very literally.

We have here a quotation from one and only one Supreme Court Justice, whichever he was. Not a majority opinion. Maybe not even a dissenting opinion. Maybe not even from a court case.

Some of the comments seem to think that a Supreme Court Justice can never use a figure of speech. That if Brandeis or Frankfurter (or another Justice) had used the expression "the ends of the earth", this was somehow an official, legally binding, authority that the earth was flat!

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Am I the only one who notices how absurd this thread is getting?

First, there is some problem about the quotation. Some attribute it to one Justice (Brandeis) and some to another (Frankfurter). Nobody can point to its source. Even so, some people take it Very literally.

We have here a quotation from one and only one Supreme Court Justice, whichever he was. Not a majority opinion. Maybe not even a dissenting opinion. Maybe not even from a court case.

Some of the comments seem to think that a Supreme Court Justice can never use a figure of speech. That if Brandeis or Frankfurter (or another Justice) had used the expression "the ends of the earth", this was somehow an official, legally binding, authority that the earth was flat!

Speaking of absurdities:

Your closing remarks. You suggest an incomplete thought/sentence to be considered, then further suggest that someone add additional language to that incomplete thought/sentence and pronounce it as legally binding. That is an absurdity.

Whereas the statement made by either Brandeis or Frankfurter is a complete thought/sentence without anyone having need to add any language to it.

In the original posting on this topic, no mention was made regarding any part of the statement being construed as "law". As close as it would come to "law" is based on the fact that a Judge, especially a Judge of the highest court in the land/sea/air/commerce, by virtue of his position being deemed to be 'on duty' 24/7/365 (always at the beckoning call), having made the statement to the public, and no-one from the judiciary ever questioning his comment. When speaking to or with the 'commoners' of the nation, he should have known better -- after all -- he knew that the 'commoners' were not at all well versed in the dynamics of the law or of the use of 'words of art' by the judiciary -- so he should have known, that a great number of the 'commoners' would have taken 'HIS' word as gospel... HE IS THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. OH MY GOODNESS. We better listen to him. So, we, the 'commoners' have listened to him... for a very long time... and his words are ingrained into our minds and perpetuated by another set of puppets (the media dancing to the tune played by the elitists).

You and the other attorneys and attorney wantabe's can clamor all you want at this time. As the rules of acceptance and usage, the rule of acquiescence have already kicked in, and you are stuck with the words of this, your puppet master, Brandeis or Frankfurter, which ever the case may have been. BTW.. the determination of who actually said it first, can be accomplished by a mere checking of chronology of both men.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

No, you are not alone. Except it is not the thread that is absurd. It is Aksis and Jerry themselves that are absurd.

Thank you. That confirms another passage from the Bible.

"1 Corinthians 2:

9. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."


Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Am I the only one who notices how absurd this thread is getting?

You're just now noticing this?

It all started with Little Brother's posting, and for me at least, it ended when I put him on the ignore list.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

First, there is some problem about the quotation. Some attribute it to one Justice (Brandeis) and some to another (Frankfurter). Nobody can point to its source.

The source is neither Brandeis nor Frankfurter, nor the University of Iowa... and we have been pointing to the Constitutions and the definitions all along.

Many people have said that Citizen is the highest Office. Saying this is not akin to stating that the world, is in fact, flat... far from it.

The determination of the exact rank of the Office of Citizen in relation to other Offices has been quite a thorn in my foot.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

We have here a quotation from one and only one Supreme Court Justice, whichever he was. Not a majority opinion. Maybe not even a dissenting opinion. Maybe not even from a court case.

Truth be told, it is quite likely that a few of the Justices have said that at one time or another as it's not so far fetched, but it's nice to see you noticed it Shoonra. At this point, I find that it's rank is unarguably circumstantial...

Thus, some discussion regarding the subject matter of the "rank of the Office of Citizen" is most defiantly in order... what will a just and reasonable consideration bring to light? The thread "The rank of the Office of Citizen - A discussion" has been opened for this discussion, and the rest of this post has been moved there.



Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[aksis]

In hind sight, it probably would have been better to include this subject matter in the rough draft of the brief, but here is a snippet of a nice article (and a link to the entire article), regarding the fact and in support of the Colonies being "municipal corporations" before they were reorganized by We, the People as "political corporations":

Corporations in the American Colonies

by Joseph S. Davis

from Essays in the Earlier History of American Corporations

Harvard University Press

1917.


...

These principles of law applied to the English colonies in

America, as part of the realm of England. The earliest colonial

corporations, and occasional later ones, therefore possessed

charters granted directly by the crown, which were issued in the

same form, by the same process, and under the same conditions as

charters for corporations to operate in the British Isles.(9*)

But as soon as the colonial governments had attained a slight

degree of development the great majority of American corporations

were erected by grants from colonial proprietors, governors, or

assemblies, and not by letters patent issuing from the English

crown or by act of Parliament.(10*) Such methods of incorporation

were not specifically provided for in the common law. It is

necessary, therefore, to inquire with some care into the nature,

extent, and limitations of the right to incorporate as it was

enjoyed by these various colonial authorities.

http://melbecon.unimelb.edu.au/het/davisjoe/corps

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[netwrkranger]

Is the office of citizen created by the birth certificate trust instrument? Oath or pledge of allegiance to a given state?

Regards,
netwrkranger