Think you are a State Citizen?

"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

Read closely and then ask:

Does my state have a duty of protecting me?

[KaosTheory]

Hmm Why no HB ....no they don't.....they even say so.....you know?...I'm startin ta think I ain't no citazin.

Originally Posted by KaosTheory

Hmm Why no HB ....no they don't.....they even say so.....you know?...I'm startin ta think I ain't no citazin.

Then you don't have a duty of allegiance.

[rushpat]

Sounds like something Marc Stevens (author of "Adventures in Legal Land") was saying in a recent radio interview.

I have nothing original.

But that's because I am a student.

Marc is the revealer of this knowledge.

[Jerseee]

I disagree. If you are a member of a jural society and you give up certain freedoms (not rights) to be a member, then it is the duty of the society as well as the individual to protect themselves and those who cannot protect themselves as well as the State's responsibility to protect all of those members. If not, then there is no State.

Jerseee,

I'd respectfully have to say, OK, now show me the case law.

There are cases that assert the state has no liability to protect the individual.

If you want me to find one, I reckon I need to find one anyway, so I will start looking.

This guy (Marc Stevens) and you are basically calling out the same theme.

DON'T ARGUE.

What you are referring to is the moral obligation all of us have to look out for our fellow man.

I would ask if moral duty and actual duty are the same.

You said it right in the words: "then there is no state." Who created the state? People or the statutes?

If I have a duty to the people, I can live with that.

I deny having a duty to the statutory State.

Not arguing, just asking why you are coming from that direction without documentation.

HB

"The "local government's duty to protect against crime flows to the general public rather than to specific individuals." Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161, 167, 558 S.E.2d 490, 495 (2002) (citing Braswell, 330 N.C. at 371, 410 S.E.2d at 901)."


"The general common law rule, known as the public duty doctrine, is that a municipality and its agents act for the benefit of the public, and therefore, there is no liability for the failure to furnish police protection to specific individuals. This rule recognizes the limited resources of law enforcement and refuses to judicially impose an overwhelming burden of liability for failure to prevent every criminal act. 351 N.C. at 460-61, 526 S.E.2d at 654 (quoting Braswell, 330 N.C. at 370-71, 410 S.E.2d at 901)."


"Under North Carolina's public duty doctrine, "a municipality and its agents act for the benefit of the public, and therefore, there is no liability for the failure to furnish police protection to specific individuals." Braswell v. Braswell, 330 N.C. 363, 370, 410 S.E.2d 897, 901 (1991). Law enforcement resources are limited, and our courts have refused to judicially impose the burden of liability for failure to prevent every criminal act. 330 N.C. at 370-71, 410 S.E.2d at 901. In applying the public duty doctrine, our Supreme Court has declined to expand its protection to agencies other than local law enforcement departments exercising their duty to protect the public. Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161, 166- 67, 558 S.E.2d 490, 495 (2002); see, e.g., Lovelace v. City of Shelby, 351 N.C. 458, 526 S.E.2d 652, reh'g denied, 352 N.C. 157, 544 S.E.2d 225 (2000).

"Our courts have recognized two exceptions to the public duty doctrine. First, where there is a special relationship between the injured party and law enforcement. Second, when a law enforcement officer promises protection to an individual, the protection is not forthcoming, and the individual's reliance on the promise is causally related to his injury. Braswell, 330 N.C. at 371, 410 S.E.2d at 902; see Little v. Atkinson, 136 N.C. App. 430, 524 S.E.2d 378, review denied, 351 N.C. 474, 543 S.E.2d 492 (2000), Hedrick v. Rains, 121 N.C. App. 466, 466 S.E.2d 281, aff'd, 344 N.C. 729, 477 S.E.2d 171 (1996), Clark v. Red Bird Cab Co., 114 N.C. App. 400, 442 S.E.2d 75 (1994). Plaintiffs admit that thereare no facts alleged that would indicate that a special relationship existed between plaintiffs and law enforcement. In addition, we note that plaintiffs did not allege that law enforcement made a promise that protection was forthcoming. Therefore, neither exception as articulated above applies to this case."

"This principle of law, known as the public duty doctrine, was first applied by this Court in Braswell v. Braswell, 330 N.C. 363, 370, 410 S.E.2d 897, 901 (1991). The doctrine recognizes that a local government entity "and its agents act for the benefit of the public, and therefore, there is no liability for the failure to furnish police protection to specific individuals." Id. Under the public duty doctrine, governmental entities have no duty to protect particular individuals from harm by third parties, thus no claim may be brought against them for negligence. See id. This rule acknowledges the limited resources of law enforcement and refuses to impose, by judicial means, an overwhelming burden of liability on local governments for failure to prevent every criminal act. Id. at 371, 410 S.E.2d at 901."



This is but a few cases out of a few hundred that came up in North Carolina cases.

Anything I have seen shows an "alleged" duty of government to protect the public, but never the individual. Otherwise, I could sue the state, county, or whatever if someone broke into my home for not having an armed officer inside my house waiting on the guy (Assuming it's a guy).

I would also point out that the "public" are the sheep, and the individual who refuses allegiance to the state is the Sovereign.