Domicil, Residence & Sovereignty

Hello, Folks;

Once again it is time to stir the pot and see what's cooking.

Before I really get into the meat and potatoes portion of the segue', let me again remind the readers that the core problem in this country is that there is no bona fide mechanism in place to compel any government lackey to perform to the dictates of the Bill of right and constitution. There is no enforcement method available to the common man. Once you get that firmly fixed in your mind, it is much easier to deal with a lot of what I am giving you.

Okay...Domicil...Residence...Sovereingnty...all words which evoke powerful emotional responses in those seeking true liberty in today's American and sadly dictatorial state of political affairs.

These are also words which a number of the Paytriot For Profit gurus toss around to pique your interest.

Let's see what we can find to read on that subject matter....

"In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship." Afroyim v. Rusk , 387 U.S. 253, 18 L.Ed. 2d 757, 761, 87 S.Ct. 1660 (1967)

Before I go further, let me dissect a couple of words from that paragraph.

The word "sovereign" starts with a small 's' and is used to describe a sociopolitical class of people as a group rather than with a capital letter 'S' as in "the Sovereign".

We might argue that the statement gives each individual the character of sovereign, but we might do well to look at the Court's statement immediately preceding the paragraph possessed we are discussing.

The Court said "This power cannot, as Perez indicated, be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty possessed by all nations."

Here we see the term "sovereignty" used to impart a status on nations.

Lest we be lulled into a false sense of security, and before someone jumps the gun and says, "See...we are each 'a sovereign'" there has to be a great deal of thought given to what context the word is used in and how that use is viewed by the courts and the government entities which might have to deal with an individual wanting to be seen as "a Sovereign".

I emphasize caution and discretion before one undertakes to characterize one's self as "A Sovereign" and do so with the hopes that it will, in the final analysis, have any force and effect on some policeman, judge, or prosecutor, much less impress a run-of-the-mill bureaucrat.

So far I haven't been able to locate any substantive case law which differentiates an individual to the point of being helpful, unless it is those describing a King, Queen, or other potentate of title who is vested with the authority to run a country, and recognized as such by the general population.

Why? Because at other places in court writings we find such tidbits as "[I]n common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe , 422 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed.2d 153, 166, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)

Now we can open the forum for argument on the term "sovereign" and add in the one on "person", vs. "white person" Id at 442 U.S. 58, 64, 105 L.Ed.2d 45, 53, 109 S.Ct. 2304 (1989).

What has changed here is the addition of the words "in common usage". This begs the question "What is common usage vs. uncommon usage?"

It would appear that the terms we are discussing change aspect very readily and consistently as pulled in one direction or another by the tension of the subject matter involved and the political climate driving the questions.

Certainly one should do some more thinking about the long term ramifications of attempting to pin down this issue in such a manner as to be useful, or discarded as useless.

Anyone tried a Declaratory Judgment action to get a court to declare one's rights, relationship, and status? I don't think least I haven't seen such!

Now I am going to tippy-toe over to another word that has been touted as the cure-all by many gurus. The word "Domicil". The gurus pontificate that if you use the word Domicil and not 'residence' or' resident' you will free yourself from the statutory jurisdiction of the government.

Again, to use a legal term, hooey, hogwash, caca del toro (to be ethnically correct in the Latin community), translated for those of you who don't read Spanish, "sheet of ze bool".

Again I place before you some case law on the matter for your information.

"The mere fact that he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other." Sadat v. Mertes, 615 F.2d 1176 (1980), at page 1185.

Simply stated, the fact that you say you are not a citizen of the corporate United States and the compact party state in which you reside or are domiciled, does not mean that you are severed therefrom.

"A domocil once established continues until it is superseded by a new domocil." Restatement (Second) of Conflict Of Laws 17, comment f (1971), Id. at 1181.

Working further through this conundrum, I show you "State citizenship for the purposes of the state diversity provision is equated with domocil. The standards for determining domicil in this context are found by resort to federal common law." Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116, 1120 (6th Circuit 1973); Zaidy v. Curley, 396 F.2d 873, 874 (Fourth Circuit 1968).

Factor this into your thinking, "But in order to be a citizen of a state, it is elementary law that one must first be a citizen of the United States." Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427, 56 S.Ct. 252, 80 L.Ed. 299 (1935); Cuozzo v. Italian Line, etc., 168 F.Supp 304, 305 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1958) cited in Factor v. Pennington Press, Inc., 230 F.Supp 906, 909 (U.S.D.C.E.D.Ill. 1963)

Soooo...what does this look like? It would seem to say that in the eyes of the various courts, if you are domiciled in a state, the inference is that you are a citizen of the United States, since that comes first.

Let's add in the following; "For a natural person to fall within the provision he must be both (emphasis added) (1)a citizen of the United States and (2) a citizen of a particular state." Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 405-06, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857); Delaware, L. & W.R.Co. v. Petrowsky, 250 F.2d 554, 557 )2nd Circuit), cert. denied, 247, U.S. 508, 38 S.Ct. 427, 62 L.Ed. 1241 (1918).

One can certainly argue that one can be domociled in a state and not be a citizen of that state, Brown v. Keene, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 112, 8 L.Ed. 885 (1834), but at the norm, in the current state of political affairs in this country, the presumption lies against that position, unless you are a foreign national.

This lies on the application of the of the 14th Amendment "declares all citizens of the United States to be citizens 'of the state where they reside.'" Anderson v. Watt, 138 U.S. at 702, 11 S.Ct. at 451, cited in Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088 (1983), at page 1090.

The big question still unanswered is "How does one step away from these presumptions?"


God bless this Great Republic!
Death to the New World Order!
We shall prevail!

The truth shall set you free...but first it shall piss you off!

D. Tom

To HiddenMysteries Internet Book Store