What are your Office hours?

[Jerry Pitts]

In recent discussion on this forum, it was determined by acceptance of a presentation, the fact that each voting member of this society, are also holding the "Office of Citizen." This 'private' office was first announced by the late Supreme Court Justice Brandeis. (See signature line for the quotation of Justice Brandeis)

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.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

In recent discussion on this forum, it was determined by acceptance of a presentation, the fact that each voting member of this society, are also holding the "Office of Citizen." This 'private' office was first announced by the late Supreme Court Justice Brandeis. (See signature line for the quotation of Justice Brandeis)

Was that in the context of a personal opinion or a USSC decision?

Nonetheless, the statement is in error, as the USA was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy (which I believe it was Jefferson who dispense of such as being nothing more than mob rule.)

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Was that in the context of a personal opinion or a USSC decision?

Nonetheless, the statement is in error, as the USA was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy (which I believe it was Jefferson who dispense of such as being nothing more than mob rule.)

REsearching the quotation itself, leads me to believe that it must have been a statement to the press or something of that nature, and not a USSC case opinion. The quotation however, has gained much attention since that time.

Though the Atomic bomb is a dirty bomb, does not alter the fact that it is a very formidable weapon. Likewise this quotation. In the eyes of those who adore the concept of 'democracy' and are therefore praising anyone of such grand estate having made such a statement, it is and can be used as a weapon for those that do not give so much praise toward the current and socially acceptable NOTION of the status of this nations form of government. I prefer to use this instrument as a weapon to the demise of 'democracy' and the re-birth of the Republican form of government.

Jerry

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

REsearching the quotation itself, leads me to believe that it must have been a statement to the press or something of that nature, and not a USSC case opinion. The quotation however, has gained much attention since that time.

Though the Atomic bomb is a dirty bomb, does not alter the fact that it is a very formidable weapon. Likewise this quotation. In the eyes of those who adore the concept of 'democracy' and are therefore praising anyone of such grand estate having made such a statement, it is and can be used as a weapon for those that do not give so much praise toward the current and socially acceptable NOTION of the status of this nations form of government. I prefer to use this instrument as a weapon to the demise of 'democracy' and the re-birth of the Republican form of government.

Jerry

I think I understand. It falls within the paradigm of "repeat a lie often enough..."?

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

I think I understand. It falls within the paradigm of "repeat a lie often enough..."?

Though it may be construed on the part of the ptb's that they have repeated enough lies often enough, that they believe the lies; the point that I stress, is this: find enough of their lies and cram them down their throats rather rapidly, and they will learn to tell the TRUTH, or be forced to make admission of their own incompetence. Repeatedly, it has been stipulated on this and other forums, if you are going to make a claim, be prepared to substantiate that claim with proof positive of the TRUTH of your claim.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[aksis]

Jerry;

To get on track with the topic of this thread: "What are your Office hours?"

The answer to that depends upon the office.

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.

I must object, this presumes facts not in evidence.

Further, I don't find any Office to be a 24/7 position. You made mention of that regarding Judges in another thread and all I could think about is how unhealthy that would be for people, on the job 24/7??? No.

Further, when 'off duty' (a very common concept), the people holding what ever Office ascend to their proper place, as sovereigns in their correct capacity and joint-heirs to the original estate... Our equals... just another one of the People.


David Merrill and many others have made the point over and over about the various ways people "appear in [US] person", the example I like the best is the simple act of pulling out the 'STATE' Identification as it is one very common way people step into Office all the time... and thereby become subject to the juris diction.

Unless people are preforming a public function, like voting, there is no reason one should be using their Citizenship for anything... while at the polls keep in mind that you are in Office and should conduct your self accordingly.

Also, consider the difference between a man/woman 'traveling' via their 'right of Way' in their 'private property' vs. a 'Citizen' 'licensed' to 'drive' a 'motor vehicle' 'registered' in the 'STATE'.

Next consider working... unless it's a public function, there is no need to be in Office, but if you're in Office, wouldn't this be acting in the capacity of a 'federal employee'? And isn't a federal employee's 'income' subject to income tax?

If being summoned before Administrative Hearings, to appear in person, to answer for you actions, were you acting in an Official capacity, and can it be proven that you were? Isn't Admiralty the venue that actions involving State Officers would proceed?



People;

While strugling with 'knowing thy self (identity) and being thy master (sovereignty)', do keep this in the forefront of your mind:

The owners/co-owners of corporation[s] have no obligation to become 'officers' or 'employees' of their corporation[s], but can if they like.

Also, as this is a "political corporation" we should/could use these term "Sovereign" rather then 'co-owner', but People seem to have an easier time grasping the concept of being a "co-owner" of a corporation then the concept of being the Sovereign of a State, yet once they can see they are co-owners and that the STATE is a political corporation, it is just another baby step for them to ascend to their inherent and rightful place.

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

P.S.

Jerry;

The last Post in the "Office of Citizen" thread was the opening of a discussion regarding the "Rank of the Office of Citizen" in relation to the other Officers of the State[s] (I started this thread for discussion: "The Rank of the Office of Citizen - A discussion" of that subject matter).

The bulk of your initial post was very in line with this and cast the Office in an almost diametrically opposed light to what I had presented. I think it will make for a nice discussion regarding the "Rank of the Office of Citizen" so I imported it there, minus the opening paragraph... and the mills grind swift and fine...

On another note,

While not how I would have worded it, this is true enough:

In recent discussion on this forum, it was determined by acceptance of a presentation, the fact that each voting member of this society, are also holding the "Office of Citizen."

I flat out disagreed (and still do), with this:

This 'private' office was first announced by the late Supreme Court Justice Brandeis. (See signature line for the quotation of Justice Brandeis)

The reason being is this:

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, 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 PUBLIC CORPORATION CAN BE "PRIVATE".

Why do you insist on holding to this idea that the Office is "private"? I can't recognize it as such, how can you?

Or are you referring to something other then the Office of Citizen created at Art. I, Sec. 2. of the Constitution?

Further, the point of origin of the term is not a quote from a Justice, it is the Constitution[s] of the political corporations of the several united States of America and of the United States of America.

It's rank is still being researched...




P.P.S.

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Nonetheless, the statement is in error, as the USA was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy (which I believe it was Jefferson who dispense of such as being nothing more than mob rule.)

FreeFromContract,

I find a "democracy" is a type of "republic":

Originally Posted by Bouvier's

GOVERNMENT...

3. Governments are also divided into monarchical and republican; among the monarchical states may be classed empires, kingdoms, and others; in these the sovereignty resides in, a single individual. There are some monarchical states under the name of duchies, counties, and the like. Republican states are those where the sovereignty is in several persons. These are subdivided into aristocracies, where the power is exercised by a few persons of the first rank in the state; and democracies, which are those governments where the common people may exercise the highest powers. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 20. See Aristocracy; Democracy; Despotism; Monarchy; Theocracy. ...

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by aksis

Jerry;

To get on track with the topic of this thread: "What are your Office hours?"

The answer to that depends upon the office.

It is also dependent upon which is your choice of Kingdom, and who is your Sovereign (if in fact you recognize some entity greater than you).

Originally Posted by aksis

I must object, this presumes facts not in evidence.

The evidence is there if the eyes and mind and spirit are open and receptive.

Originally Posted by aksis

Further, I don't find any Office to be a 24/7 position. You made mention of that regarding Judges in another thread and all I could think about is how unhealthy that would be for people, on the job 24/7??? No.

Ok, here we go: As stated above, it depends on the Kingdom of your choice. Biblically speaking, we find that there were many ‘offices’ established and recorded in the text of the Bible (perhaps many more un-enumerated). The primary requirement of any of those offices are that you maintain yourself as a “Christian” which is a 24/7/365 requirement. An example of this is “Pray without ceasing” 1Thessalonians 5:17 (that example is in context to this subject matter). Is this really an ‘unhealthy’ requirement to be placed on someone.?

Originally Posted by aksis

Further, when 'off duty' (a very common concept), the people holding what ever Office ascend to their proper place, as sovereigns in their correct capacity and joint-heirs to the original estate... Our equals... just another one of the People.

Again: Even Biblically speaking, ‘time off’ as in a ‘day of rest’ was granted, but nowhere does the Bible speak of relieving anyone of their ‘duty’ to perform the responsibilities associated with their ‘office’. I presume in your reference to ‘off duty’, you may be paralleling my analogy of ‘wearing two hats’ and the ‘off duty’ time being that time wherein you are not wearing the hat of one that is doing business with the public. My example, however, points out a responsibility (in context to the primary duty of a Christian) to continue performing the duty whether or not you are ‘off duty’.

Originally Posted by aksis

David Merrill and many others have made the point over and over about the various ways people "appear in [US] person", the example I like the best is the simple act of pulling out the 'STATE' Identification as it is one very common way people step into Office all the time... and thereby become subject to the juris diction.

Again, choice of Kingdom and its’ subsequent laws.

Originally Posted by aksis

Unless people are preforming a public function, like voting, there is no reason one should be using their Citizenship for anything... while at the polls keep in mind that you are in Office and should conduct your self accordingly.

A ‘public function’ is any function that is carried out in the public and has an affect on the ‘public’. These are again terms that are secular in nature and point toward the secular view of things. However, on the other hand, they are also Biblical, in that Jesus, the Christ, went to extreme in teaching each of us by example, how to conduct (perform) our selves in ‘public’.

Originally Posted by aksis

Also, consider the difference between a man/woman 'traveling' via their 'right of Way' in their 'private property' vs. a 'Citizen' 'licensed' to 'drive' a 'motor vehicle' 'registered' in the 'STATE'.

Again, consider that God created all of us with a built in means of transportation that is not dependent upon the more socially acceptable means of transporting our persons and or personal/private property. Subsequently a choice of Kingdom and of the Kingdom laws.

Originally Posted by aksis

Next consider working... unless it's a public function, there is no need to be in Office, but if you're in Office, wouldn't this be acting in the capacity of a 'federal employee'? And isn't a federal employee's 'income' subject to income tax?

As stated above, if you are performing in public, and the performance has an effect on the public, then your performance is in the particular office which you hold. If the laws of the Kingdom of your choice dictate that performing in the public qualifies you as being ‘a federal employee’, then you are a ‘federal employee’. Diplomats and Ambassadors, visiting this country, though ‘performing in the public’ are not and cannot be construed by this nation of secular government as ‘federal employees’.

Originally Posted by aksis

If being summoned before Administrative Hearings, to appear in person, to answer for you actions, were you acting in an Official capacity, and can it be proven that you were? Isn't Admiralty the venue that actions involving State Officers would proceed?

Before those questions can be answered, consider that the Summons spoken of may or may not have any bearing on whether you are required to attend or otherwise respond to the summons. Once again we see a choice of Kingdom, the laws of that Kingdom in relation to this kingdom, and the treaties and or agreements that have been made between this kingdom and the Kingdom that you represent.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Lumpy and Aksis, this conversation between the two of you is proof positive that two half-minds do not equal one full mind. Who would have thought?



Jerry/Lumpy could you please provide us with an example of you collecting lies and "cramming it" down some office holder's throat (that did not end with you in jail.)

Pitts v Mathias, et.al. Northern District of Florida

I did not win any monetary gain, but they lost 14 employees for having been caught in lies, fabricating evidence and falsifying information on their computer system. To see the truth of that story, make sure you pull all the files of the case instead of leaning on the final outcome as reported by the corporate judicial system. Or in the alternative, contact Mr Steve Kahn (former Senate General Counsel), or Mr Richard Doran (former Deputy Attorney General for the State of Florida; or Contact Mr Allen Roman (former Asst General Counsel for the Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services for the State of Florida). This is about the third or fourth time I have extended this invitation to the entire group, that they may be able to validate what I am saying. I don't want you to take my word for it... so check it out for yourself.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

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


105 F.3d 671

Pitts
v.
Mathias

NO. 94-3150

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

Dec 24, 1996

Appeal From: N.D.Fla., No. 92-40375-WS
1

VACATED AND REMANDED.

CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

WOW Lumpy!!! how insightful!!!

Where is your evidence of having been in Federal litigation?

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