The Rank of the Office of Citizen - A Discussion

[aksis]

In the thread titled "The Office of Citizen" a point was reached where the question of "What is the rank of the Office of "Citizen" in relation to other Offices of the political corporation UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?"

The question was provoked by a minor contraversy regarding a quote from a couple of Supreme Court Justices, to briefly summarize:

Originally Posted by aksis

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.

I had opened the discussion in that thread, but seeing that it needs it's own thread have imported the beginnings of the discussion to this thread:

Originally Posted by aksis

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?

To begin, I would have to say, I see that Office being akin to the position of an 'intern', and I believe elementary principles of wisdom and common sense will prove this to be the fact of the matter.

People suggesting we put the underdeveloped at the helm of our corporation[s] simply because they are joint-heirs and a co-owner are silly in my opinion... and I can think of no other position in the body politic were people who want to enter into public service can get the basic "on the job" training that would be needed before holding other Offices.

Anyone care to point out the title of the position where people who want to enter into public service can get the basic "on the job" training that would be needed before holding other Offices?

On that note, when learning to fly a plane (private or public), one is NOT put in the ****pit of an $18.8 million dollar, fully armed F-16 or a Jumbo Jet full of people... they typically learn to fly in a Piper Cub.

From my point of view, the Office of Citizen is like the Piper Cub.

Further, the general trend in nearly every corporation that I am aware of is that one must work their way up through the ranks. So again, can anyone present a more fitting "entry level" position in any State other then the Office of Citizen?

I have obviously cast this office in the light I have based on the prima facia observations that I presented, and thankfully for sake of discussion, Jerry Carlos (in the thread "What are your office hours?") casts it in quite a different light:

Brandeis, declared that this office is the most important office in a Democracy. Which would translate into a meaning that this office is 'more important' than the office of the "President". It is required to be so, due to the fact that the President would not hold his position without the consent of the holders of that 'most important office', the 'Office of Citizen'. The power that the President wields, is due to the TRUST of the holders of the "office of citizen".

Because of this TRUST that he has accepted, he is also placed in the position of TRUSTEE of the Office which he holds, and the sanctity of the American way of life, and to the upholding and protection of the Constitution for the united States of America.

Due to the fact that those voting members of this society are holding the office of citizen, they retain this positional holding as long as they are registered as voting members. The responsibilities of the office of citizen (in regard to voting and all of its' intricacies) does not close when the holder of the office walks away from the voting booth after casting his/her vote. It is a 24/7 job, requiring that the office holder be vigilant in his/her watch or tour of duty as an office holder. This means that you must always be alert to the possible violations of the various election laws, and watchful of the men and women that have been placed in an office of TRUST.

Other office holders such as Attorneys, Judges, Legislators, and even those in simple administrative positions or executive positions within the various agencies of government are beholden to the holders of that 'most important office'. As Brandeis has declared that the 'office of citizen' is "the most important office in a Democracy", then it is only reasonable to conclude that the holders of 'less important offices' are required to be subservient to the holders of that highest (most important) office; the Office of Citizen. Thus their title as Public Servants.

Viewing the current situation in America, it is only obvious that most holders of the office of citizen, have fallen asleep during their vigil. They have allowed the holders of the offices of TRUST to commandeer the controls of this mighty vessel known as the united States of America. It is up to each of us to sound the alarm with a mighty blast to awaken the minds of those others that have fallen into this deep slumber of passive attitude. While some are sleeping, others are aware of the inverted situation, but are mindful of the fact that the public trust offices are armed to the hilt and any action of the holders of the office of citizen to correct the situation would likewise be met with armed resistance, resulting in loss of personal freedom, loss of property, and in some cases the loss of life. Indeed, it is a precarious situation, but still a situation that must be corrected. Freedom is not Free.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion and some fact finding regarding the rank of the Office of "Citizen", as the ultimate goal is to dis-cover the truth of the matter at hand.

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

P.S.


Jerry;

I hope you don't mind me importing your post here, it just seemed to be very fitting for this discussion.

I will respond in my next post, but am a little pressed for time at the moment. I look forward to the discussion.


P.P.S.

People;

Also note, do not get hung up on "CaSe" of the terms, the title of the [O/o]ffice is: "Citizen", but it has been being refered to as "office of citizen", "Office of Citizen", "office of Citizen" and for my part, I am intending NO distinction between the terms based on capiltization of particular words. In the Constitution, both the term "Office" and "Citizen" are capitalized.

Ergo, in the original Brief I wrote "Office of Citizen".

[Shoonra]

So it's no longer being blamed on either Brandeis or Frankfurter. Now it's "Many people have said ...."

Well, "Many people" told me that my life would improve if George Bush beat Al Gore, "Many people" also told me that my life would improve if I went to law school instead of accounting school. Etc. Seems like Many People owe me a massive refund!!

Before someone continues building an elaborate argument that somehow he's entitled to certain privileges and immunities reserved to federal office-holders, based on this quotation (even though the quote itself speaks of an "office in a democracy". not an office in the federal govt), I like a few details clarified:

First, where did this quotation come from? Brandeis? Frankfurter? Alfred E. Neuman? And when and where? Before they got on the Supreme Court, both Brandeis and Frankfurter were very energetic teachers, lawyers and public speakers; did this quotation date from before the judgeship? Was it said in a court decision or a Fourth of July speech? Let's be specific.

Second, what sort of legal authority does this figure of speech get? Has it been mentioned by more than one legal authority? In other court cases?

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

So it's no longer being blamed on either Brandeis or Frankfurter. Now it's "Many people have said ...."

Well, "Many people" told me that my life would improve if George Bush beat Al Gore, "Many people" also told me that my life would improve if I went to law school instead of accounting school. Etc. Seems like Many People owe me a massive refund!!

I still contend that the statement was originally made by Brandeis.

At any rate, moving on to your next statement(s).
Based upon your closing statement in the above paragraph, it appears that you, like many others (myself included) have made a grand mistake in the years of our youth. We listened to others when in fact we should have checked out the voracity of what was being told to us in those youthful years. We accepted, in good faith, not questioning the authority that was being imposed upon us, which has led us down a path that we now recognize was conceivably the 'wrong path'. If this were not true in your case also Shoonra, then you would not have made the claim regarding "massive refund" being owed to you by those you listened to.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Before someone continues building an elaborate argument that somehow he's entitled to certain privileges and immunities reserved to federal office-holders, based on this quotation (even though the quote itself speaks of an "office in a democracy". not an office in the federal govt), I like a few details clarified:

First, where did this quotation come from? Brandeis? Frankfurter? Alfred E. Neuman? And when and where? Before they got on the Supreme Court, both Brandeis and Frankfurter were very energetic teachers, lawyers and public speakers; did this quotation date from before the judgeship? Was it said in a court decision or a Fourth of July speech? Let's be specific.

First, in answering the question, I must refer again to the author of the article; A State Sanctioned Institute of Higher Learning (SSIHL). If you are desiring to file a claim against this SSIHL, in federal court for making false representations in some attempt of their own design to promote entry into their facility, then I might consider giving credence to the remainder of your post.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Second, what sort of legal authority does this figure of speech get? Has it been mentioned by more than one legal authority? In other court cases?

Was Brandeis or Frankfurter (if as claimed were the author of such statement) a Federal Supreme Court Justice at the time it was alleged to have been stated? Would the People perceive the statement being made by a Supreme Court Justice as being a statement from one that is qualified to make such a statement? On the road speeches of a certainty cannot be even closely related to 'law that has been enacted by congress', as those comments are mere 'opinions'... uh oh... what did I just say? That would bear the meaning that Judges when making 'opinions' cannot be construed as 'making law that has been enacted by the congress'. Oh My Goodness! Thank you again Shoonra, for forcing me to view this whole thing in a different perspective. You yourself, stipulate (by inference) that a judge who is rendering an opinion cannot be construed as making law. "Legal authorty" bears the meaning of 'pertaining to law'. Citizens and Citizenship are pertaining to law, and law is created by the Congress (in the language of the Constitution), NOT the judiciary.

Need I say more?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

That's because they are bottom feeders. It is like the office of outhouse attendant.

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

The whole theory of office of citizen still sounds retarded as all hell to me.

[mertensv16]

It's a metaphor, people.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

It is more like the office that is made up and non-existent.

Prior to the establishment of any office, that imaginative office is non-existent (made up, fictitious, non-reality, non-materialistic, incorporeal).

The real issue to be considered, is WHEN (at what period in time) does an 'office' become existing in reality (the physical world). The easiest way to answer that is to look at the office of 'court'. Where can 'court' be executed? Anywhere the judge says that he desires to conduct that 'court'. In his chambers, in the 'court-room' (commonly called), in the public square, even at the scene of a crime. When can a court be executed? Whenever the judge says that he and the other required elements that make up the court can convene at the prescribed location. Now, comes the real question. WHO is the Judge?, and what are his/her functions/authority/jurisdiction/venue?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Hey lumpy! When/where was the made-up office of Citizen "Established?"



Awfully retarded fellas.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citize...ere-wrong.html

[aksis]

Here is the Oath of the office of a Citizen:

Oath of Allegiance

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian* direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

*CIVILIAN. A doctor, professor, or student of the civil law. --bouvier

http://www.uscis.gov

Looks like a "doctor, professor, or student of the civil law" can/may out rank a Citizen... when required by the law.

Looks like the Military Officers can/may out rank a Citizen as well... when required by the law.

I would prefer to limit the scope of the information I look at to the information that would lead someone holding the Office of a supreme Court Justice to making such a statement in the first place, not their statement.

Further, looking at the quote[s], there are similar quote[s] where Louis is said to have called it a "private office" and "many others" call it this as well.

In fact, I have already come to a conclusion and supported it regarding the "private" vs. "public" nature of this office:

Since "[t]he United States of America are a corporation" [UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, 5. - bouvier], and specifically, a "Public corporation, which are also called political, and sometimes municipal corporations, [which] are those which have for their object the government of a portion of the state;" [CORPORATION, 4. - bouvier].... THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE OFFICE OF A POLITICAL CORPORATION CAN BE "PRIVATE".

PRIVATE. Not general, as a private act of the legislature; not in office; as, a private person, as well as an officer, may arrest a felon; individual, as your private interest; not public, as a private way, a private nuisance.[bouvier]

My mind is made up on this and I will not debate this point any further.

The other aspect in the quote[s], and the purpose of this thread is looking at the "rank" of the office of [C|c]itizen.

"... In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds... A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. ..." [PERSON - bouvier]

What is the rank one holds in the body politic when they hold the office of Citizen a.k.a. Citizenship?

This is, and remains, the subject matter of this discussion and I have no interest in the rhetoric, hyperbola, and disingenuous sophistry:

"It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be, in its present form, from the Inquisition it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance." The Complete Madison, at 303.

By contrast, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in this case severely constricts national banks’ access to diversity jurisdiction as compared to the access generally available to corporations, for corporations ordinarily rank as citizens only of States in which they are incorporated or maintain their principal place of business, and are not deemed citizens of every State in which they maintain a business establishment. --WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. SCHMIDT et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit

http://supreme.justia.com/us/546/04-1186/

"My brethren say that, when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficent legislation has shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and when his rights as a citizen or a man are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men's rights are protected... What the nation, through Congress, has sought to accomplish in reference to that race is what had already been done in every State of the Union for the white race -- to secure and protect rights belonging to them as freemen and citizens, nothing more. It was not deemed enough "to help the feeble up, but to support him after." The one underlying purpose of congressional legislation has been to enable the black race to take the rank of mere citizens. The difficulty has been to compel a recognition of the legal right of the black race to take the rank of citizens, and to secure the enjoyment of privileges belonging, under the law, to them as a component part of the people for whose welfare and happiness government is ordained." -- Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/109/3/case.html

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

P.S.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

So it's no longer being blamed on either Brandeis or Frankfurter. Now it's "Many people have said ...."

It's not a matter of blame, its a matter of credit, and of the 2 Justices, the credit would most likely be due Louis Dembitz Brandeis who (more then likely) influanced Felix Frankfurter.. having been at the Court many years before the Felix.

It was "many people" before I pointed it out, you even noted that the vast number of sites attribute Brandeis and only some to Frankfurter. People quoting someone are simply saying the same thing, and as you pointed out the vast number of sites quoting them, the hyperbola about me pointing out that many people have said this is disingenuous.

So, yes "Many people have said ...."

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Well, "Many people" told me that my life would improve if George Bush beat Al Gore, "Many people" also told me that my life would improve if I went to law school instead of accounting school. Etc. Seems like Many People owe me a massive refund!!

That's why I wanted to look into if it is true that it is the "highst office", and give it a just and reasonable consideration based on the facts and law. Many people say many things...

"Many people" told me that my life would improve if I know my Self, love my Self and love Others as I love my Self... I have found this to be true.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Before someone continues building an elaborate argument that somehow he's entitled to certain privileges and immunities reserved to federal office-holders, based on this quotation (even though the quote itself speaks of an "office in a democracy". not an office in the federal govt), I like a few details clarified:

First, where did this quotation come from? Brandeis? Frankfurter? Alfred E. Neuman? And when and where? Before they got on the Supreme Court, both Brandeis and Frankfurter were very energetic teachers, lawyers and public speakers; did this quotation date from before the judgeship? Was it said in a court decision or a Fourth of July speech? Let's be specific.

At the moment, I am not able to find the exact source that Brandeis is being quoted from, but amoung the many sites that I found with these quotes being published, are the sites of Universities.

While I would like the specifics, until the exact source of the quote is found, and as it's source is not crucial to me (as such a prespective will be able to be supported without quoting either of those justices, if it be true), I simply apply some reason and common sense.

For example, the credit would most likely be due Louis Dembitz, having been at the Court many years before the Felix (according to a brief overview of their lives, he appears to be the more influential of the two). It stands to reason that Felix would have been influanced and guided by Louis.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Second, what sort of legal authority does this figure of speech get?

Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted.

Further, your presumption that it is a 'figure of speech' is not proven. Till then, this question is, in part, premature.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Has it been mentioned by more than one legal authority? In other court cases?

Good questions...

As I find things relevent to their answers I will be sure to post them here.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Prior to the establishment of any office, that imaginative office is non-existent (made up, fictitious, non-reality, non-materialistic, incorporeal).

The real issue to be considered, is WHEN (at what period in time) does an 'office' become existing in reality (the physical world). The easiest way to answer that is to look at the office of 'court'. Where can 'court' be executed? Anywhere the judge says that he desires to conduct that 'court'. In his chambers, in the 'court-room' (commonly called), in the public square, even at the scene of a crime. When can a court be executed? Whenever the judge says that he and the other required elements that make up the court can convene at the prescribed location. Now, comes the real question. WHO is the Judge?, and what are his/her functions/authority/jurisdiction/venue?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

You ask when it is "created" but then looked and asked questions related to at when it is "filled".

The first mention of any office of an organization in the founding documents is it's point of creation.

If not there, then where?

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Aksis, Pitts,

Which one of you is a complete brain damage retard and which is an idiot without the ability to learn?

I want to place a bet on the most loser researcher behind this theory however I having trouble discriminating between the two options.

Thanks,

Cody

Obviously, that is due to the fact that you do not know how to do proper research, else you would not have challenged me to show evidence of where I had crammed "their lies" "down their throats" and not suffer the penalty of 'jail time'.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...1.94-3150.html