WITHOUT PREJUDICE
I've seen cases where a lawyer had a couple teens down in ol' 'Bama refer to themselves as "citizens of the State of Alabama" which seemed to be an "intentional error". Well...anyways, many of those cases cited in this thread--if one really reads them one may find can that judges are sometimes trying to tell "you" something. I have come across at least one judge who might strike one as a jerk at first but after a bit one sees that he is rather pleased to see folks who are making the effort to shake off their identity crisis. The key is being careful how one hears:
For example: Is "people of the United States" the same as "people of Delaware".
Consider also that calling oneself a "Sovereign, supreme, natural born, individual person" may just smack of idiocy. Or calling oneself a "sentient sovereign overlord supreme individual citizen"..likewise. Could it be possible that calling oneself a sovereign and a citizen is to contradict oneself? And even where the people who said they were "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota" could it perhaps be the reason their argument fell short of their intended mark is because the judge saw that they were: 1) free, 2) free to contract, 3) and had contracted with the IRS. The judge probably didnt care if they said they were from "Mars Republic One"--he perhaps saw a contract or evidence of "income in the United States".
I find that many of the cases used to "posterchild" what are called "idiot legal arguments" tell a whole lot by what they do not say and that often there is some quirk or a combination of facts that is held up as though there were a failure of a third unrelated principle.
Quote:
"The precise question for decision, therefore, is whether, by the use of the phrase 'any person', Congress intended to confer upon the United States the right to maintain an action for treble damages against a violator of the Act. Since in common usage, the term “person” does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
The court is deciding, then if the government of the United States is a "person" in a certain context. Obviously, in the second sentence, the word "sovereign" refers, not to the people or to any individual, but to the "United States" in the previous sentence. The court determined, in short, that "person" is not a term that includes the US government--the "sovereign".
|
Its succinctly stated therein that the term "person" does not include the sovereign. The context of the case is important but it still "sovereign" isn’t "person". The context may be referring to the "United States" and may not say anything about the people or any individual, however were there be a sovereign the sovereign is not referenced when the term "person" is utilized. In acts passed by certain parliamentary bodies, this same principle is minded because when they mean "the Crown" they specifically say "the Crown". Otherwise, the sovereign isnt being referred to. The fact is the judge is therein indicating that term person doesn’t refer to the sovereign regardless of who the sovereign is.
Quote:
As for the "state citizen not US citizen" issue, let's take the Cruickshank decision. Yes, the court said what you say. But it also said--in the very same decision--that:
"The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National...." and the citizenship of the United States "owes allegiance to two sovereigns, and claims the protection of both." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1876).
|
"1) The people of the United States 2) resident 3) within any State." The people of the United States is not necessarily synonymous with the people of Illinois. The people of the United States could perhaps include the likes of a "citizen of the United States". The People of Illinois may include say an Illinois National. Because the term 'resident' is utilized at that point in that case, I have reason to believe they are referring to a kind of entity that can 'reside'. Furthermore, "within any State" is specifically limited to those within the jurisdiction of a State.
Great Work!
