The Office of Citizen

[aksis]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

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

Regards,
netwrkranger

netwrkranger;

These are questions that have been on my mind as well.

I'll share my thoughts on it...

It is certain that the office of Citizen existed before the implied constructive trust[s] resulting from the workings of the New Deal (in many cases, their are 2 such offices being held by each of the people, one of the State and one of the United States of America).

So the first questions that come to mind are:

1. What constitutes the individual Citizenship[s]?
2. Is it implied, if not, what documents constitute it?

At the very least, in the event of it being constituted with documents, it would have to consist of the particular file folder[s] in the public records that would hold any such documents.

Perhaps that is all it is, and the cargo of this 'vessel' is any documents in it? The first document being it's Birth Certificate...



And next, what is the relation between the Citizenship[s] and the implied constructive trust[s] resulting from the workings of the New Deal?

1. Is it a separate legal person?
2. Is it an enhancement to the office?

It is certain that it is applied for separately. We know this for fact. The Soc. Sec. card is signed... it is not created via the Constitution, etc..

Also, one doesn't need to be a Citizen to apply and recieve a Soc. Sec. number.

These facts would sustain that it is separate from the Citizenship.

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[netwrkranger]

From a perennial favorite: http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jurisdiction.htm

Looks like you are in good company with your theory of Office of Citizen, aksis.

Fragments from:
UNDERSTANDING JURISDICTION

Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn (or affirmed) to support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an official "fail" to perform his lawful duties, he’d evidence in that omission that his oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION. Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of office, who were in office only by their oaths. And that’s still the situation. It’s just that the government has very cleverly obscured that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income. As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late 19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax wasn’t apportioned, and couldn’t be apportioned, that because of the fact that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States according to the census. But the income tax wasn’t absolutely abolished. The court listed a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as a benefit of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a "kick back" or even a "return." Essentially, the court said that what Congress gives, it can demand back. As that wouldn’t be income derived within a State, the rule of apportionment didn’t apply. Make sense?

The 16th allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it doesn’t say (nor do the statues enacted under it). The Supreme Court has stated that this Amendment granted Congress "no new powers." That’s absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but only the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to tax officers’ incomes (as benefits of office) to their incomes from other sources (from whatever source derived). The 16th Amendment and the statutes enacted thereunder don’t have to say whose incomes are subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers. That’s logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to "willfully fail" to file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist under the broad category of a perjury. Period, no exception.

Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO taxing his outside income, that from sources within a State. Could have been interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony. If he had a side job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms of income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income from the benefits he derived by being an officer.
That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is pretty obvious. Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office, it’s far easier to just reduce the benefits up front! Saves time. Saves paper. The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming back as much as 15 or 16 months later. So, even though the benefits of office could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was dropped by Congress. There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court ruling. The first is to have the court reverse itself. That’s a very strange concept at law. Actually, it’s impossibility at law. The only way a court can change a prior ruling is if the statutes or the Constitution change, that changing the premises on which its prior conclusion at law was derived. Because it was a Supreme Court ruling nearly abolishing the income tax, the second method, an Amendment to the Constitution, was used to overcome the prior decision. That was the 16th Amendment.

The 16th allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it doesn’t say (nor do the statues enacted under it). The Supreme Court has stated that this Amendment granted Congress "no new powers." That’s absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but only the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to tax officers’ incomes (as benefits of office) to their incomes from other sources (from whatever source derived). The 16th Amendment and the statutes enacted thereunder don’t have to say whose incomes are subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers. That’s logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to "willfully fail" to file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist under the broad category of a perjury. Period, no exception.

Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you’re saying, "Man, I’d never be so foolish as to claim that." I’ll betcha $100 I can prove that you did it and that you’ll be forced to agree. Did you ever sign a tax form, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it.

Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed. You declared that it was "true" that you were "under penalties of perjury." Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It’s common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you’d need to be under oath, right? Right. There’s no other way, unless you pretend to be under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically. There would be no oath. Hence it’s a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on making a false oath. So, to claim to be "under penalties of perjury" is to claim that you’re under oath. That claim could be true, could be false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim.

[netwrkranger]

More fragments from the same article:

Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe that you are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to have income and you’ll be charged with "willful failure to file," a crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something!

….

Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of the notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were made and signed "Under penalties of perjury." The prior ruling of the Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise on which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the taxpayer’s oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s and early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for Sullivan had no current relevance.

The claimed purpose of the 14th was to vest civil rights to the former slaves. A method was needed to convert them from chattel to full civil beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that precluded that from occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But it took a little more than the amendment. The former slaves would need to perform an act, subjecting themselves to the "jurisdiction" of the United States. You should now realize that an oath is the way that was/is accomplished.

After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise - they couldn’t vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty peeved over what had occurred in the prior several years, and they weren’t about to extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The Federal government found a way to force that.

It ordered that voters had to be "registered." And it ordered that to become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. The white folks, by and large, weren’t about to do that. They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a "State had no right to secede." The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the Constitution. The vast majority of them didn’t have the slightest idea of what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was!

Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist, these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by Quakers! Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than the former slaves. The former slaves became de jure (by oath) federal officials, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by that oath. They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of their office, save what was then extended under the 14th Amendment. There was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40 acres and a mule, but that quickly faded.

[indio007]

Even the Supreme Court's jurisdiction comes from an overt act or acquiescence...........
Andrew Jackson said it best..

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Looks like you are in good company with your theory of Office of Citizen, aksis.

netwrkranger;

I find it to be a proven fact, not a theory.

Some of the conclusions being drawn upon this fact may be theory tho, and I don't like to base my Life on theory. So I have become careful and strive to verify the facts.

I have read that article you are quoting before, and I like it for what it is, but I find a few erroneous conclusions being drawn by the author.

First, the concept of perjury is much older then the English common law (or any statutes and exists regardless of if it was enacted by the legislature) and is not always a matter pertaining to an "Oath of Office". It is the swearing under the penalty of perjury on the various forms that one is a "U.S. Citizen" (or other kind of "US person") that would be the crux of many issues.

Once you have done this, you would need to correct the Record before you could honestly say you were not.

Also, to make an affidavit or be a witness would obviously not make one a US Citizen, nor can it be construed to be a life long pledge of allegiance or oath of office. If that were the case, the Naturalization process would simply consist of that.

But do keep in mind, that, making an affidavit or being a witness or like acts done "under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America" would subject someone to those particular laws of perjury and the penalties for doing that in that instant matter.

Yet, to be honest, seeing as how at one time, the penalty for perjury was Death -- being stoned to death -- I see the United States' laws regarding the punishment of perjury to be an improvement that is in accord with the law of Love.



Further, one can, at any time, surrender an Office, any Office. So the idea that you are "for ever a civil servant" is a farce and a form of slavery:

Amendment XIII -

Sec. 1.Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

All the member States of the United Nations recognize this unalienable right as well:

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

P.S.

Something else implied in that article that naggs at my mind is the implication that the United States of America is like Rome.


Rome doesn't seem to me to have had much of a concept of "private side of life" (if any), nor were the Citizens of Rome considered the Sovereigns - Considered as a republic, it was more of a Aristocracy, and at times a Monarchy/Dictatorship. This is a HUGE difference between the united States of America and the United States of America, (being Democratic republics) and the old world Rome.


Also, while many principles have been adopted from the roman civil law, this is being used to govern the "public" Officers (civilians or miliraty), not the "private" People.

The law of the "private" People it is composed, principally, of the law of nature, the law of nations, the common law, and customs.

[netwrkranger]

Please pardon my choice of words, aksis.

- netwrkranger

[aksis]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Please pardon my choice of words, aksis.

- netwrkranger

No sweat. I am not angry with you and there is nothing to pardon, I simply could not make a response to your post without clearing that up because it might/would create the presumption that I believe it to be a theory - I don't.

Until people do the finding of facts for themselves tho, the way they see it, is the way they see it. You said "theory", because to you, it was how you saw it when you made that post... and you may still.

Truth doesn't need people's agreement to be Truth.

I simply did a finding of facts in support of the title of the Brief, and then presented the work to make finding the facts easier for other people. Also, do note the source of the majority of the facts in the Brief.

Sensus verborum est anima legis.

The meaning of words is the spirit of the law.

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle (from a post that was deleted)

So if you need a supreme court judge to tell you the same...

Good thing we have some on the record (rather then the one Cody (aka Right to the Castle aka Little Brother 192 akaCodee, etc..) pretends he is friends with (see postscript)):

"Citizenship is membership in a political society and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. " LURIA v. UNITED STATES (10/20/13) 231 U.S. 9, 58 L. Ed. 101, 34 S. Ct. 10

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...ol=231&invol=9

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856):

MEMBER. ....
2.-2. An individual who belongs to a firm, partnership, company or corporation. Vide Corporation; Partnership.
3.-3. One who belongs to a legislative body, or other branch of the government; as, a member of the house of representatives; a member of the court.


SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.
2. Societies are either incorporated and known to the law, or unincorporated, of which the law does not generally take notice.
3. By civil society is usually understood a state, (q.v.) a nation, (q.v.) or a body politic. (q.v.) Rutherf. Inst. c. 1 and 2.
4. In the civil law, by society is meant a partnership. Inst. 3, 26; Dig. 17, 2 Code, 4, 37.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ...
5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181.


CORPORATION. ...
4. Public corporations, which are also called political, and sometimes municipal corporations, are those which have for their object the government of a portion of the state; Civil Code of Lo. art. 420 and although in such case it involves some private interests, yet, as it is endowed with a portion of political power, the term public has been deemed appropriate.

6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve, in common. ... In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.


OFFICE. An office is a right to exercise a public function or employment, and to take the fees and emoluments belonging to it,. Shelf. on Mortm. 797; Cruise, Dig. Index, h.t.; 3 Serg. & R. 149.


FUNCTION, office. Properly, the occupation of an office; by the performance of its duties, the officer is said to fill his function. Dig. lib. 32, 1. 65, Sec. 1.

"... The fact that suffrage is a public function by which essential organs of the state are created is not incompatible with its organization as a right in the technical sense of the term; ..." -- General Theory of Law and State By Hans Kelsen, Anders Wedberg, p. 293

"The most important office in a democracy is the office of citizen."
Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1916-1939) referring to the right of suffrage.

"Citizenship is membership in a political society and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. " LURIA v. UNITED STATES (10/20/13) 231 U.S. 9, 58 L. Ed. 101, 34 S. Ct. 10

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...ol=231&invol=9

Thus, "Citizen" is the title of an Office of the political corporation UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Properly, the occupation of an office; by the performance of its duties, the officer is said to fill his function. So when you vote (or preform other public functions) you are appearing in the person of "Citizen", and are expected to act like an Officer of the State or United States of America... because that is what you are for that span of time you are preforming any public functions or operating as a "Citizen".

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

P.S.

The email notification of the post that was deleted:

Return-Path: <admin@suijuris.net>
Received: from hostname.axiophonics.com (66-11-237-53.managemyvps.com [66.11.237.53])
by www.Idea-Anvil.net (8.14.2/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m6B3oW1H050333
for <aksis@idea-anvil.net>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:50:33 -0700 (MST)
(envelope-from admin@suijuris.net)
Received: (qmail 16129 invoked by uid 48); 10 Jul 2008 20:50:18 -0700
Date: 10 Jul 2008 20:50:17 -0700
To: aksis@idea-anvil.net
Subject: Reply to post 'The Office of Citizen'
From: "Suijuris Forums" <admin@suijuris.net>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Message-ID: <200807110313.76e2ae933347@www.suijuris.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: vBulletin Mail via PHP
Status: R
X-Status: NC
X-KMail-EncryptionState:
X-KMail-SignatureState:
X-KMail-MDN-Sent:

Dear aksis,

Right to the Castle has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - The Office of Citizen - in the Articles & News forum of Suijuris Forums.

This thread is located at:
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...-new-post.html

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Sure... Just ran all of this by my buddy who is a former supreme courts justice. We are of the mutual opinion that this entire theory is not even that. It is a provable falsity.

So if you need a supreme court judge to tell you the same... I suggest you make friends with one... or try Aksis's stupid ass research when it counts.
***************


There may be other replies also, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

All the best,
Suijuris Forums

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unsubscription information:

To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit this page:
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/subscr...o=usub&t=13204

To unsubscribe from ALL threads, please visit this page:
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/subscr...n&folderid=all