Why don’t we have rights anymore?

Why don’t we have rights anymore? 
By Steven D. Miller 

Here are twenty pages that every American should read before being ensnared by pet licensesdriver license, employment forms, tax forms, ID cards, or a selective service registration .  And especially before any marriage license, birth certificates, or SSNs for children. 

“We The People” created a government by writing a Constitution. They were responsible for controlling what they created. You inherited their government and you are responsible for controlling what you inherited. 

Those who swore oaths-of-office to be your subordinate civil-servants did not want to remain subordinate, they wanted power to dominate you. They deceive you into becoming subordinate to them. Their deep-state infiltrators control your federal government. Learn their tricks and don’t be enslaved again by the yoke of bondage. 

We hold the truth that we are all created equal. There are people who did not want to remain equal, such as: fugitives, welfare recipients, and those who swear oaths to be subordinate.

They didn’t want to remain equal. They waived their rights for any of the following reasons:
• The civil law reduces an ungrateful freeman to a condition of servitude.
• Like Esau, they sold their birthright for a promise of a bowl of stew.
• They changed their citizenship by getting a Social Security Number.
• They wanted a covering.
• They confessed that they could not manage their own affairs.
• They swore an oath to a superior.
• They wanted a representative to represent them.

Did you consent to be governed? 

 

Once you voluntarily submit yourself to such a form of government, you cannot complain. 

The Supreme Court in U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 at page 551:

“It is the natural consequence of a citizenship1 which owes allegiance2 to two sovereignties3, and claims protection from both4. The citizen cannot complain5, because he has voluntarily submitted6 himself to such a form of government7.”

This Supreme Court Cruikshank ruling was a 14th Amendment case. The citizen who cannot complain was a 14th Amendment citizen “because he has voluntarily submitted himself” to the federal government.

Do not consent to be governed. People are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. a citizenship

  • 14th Amendment
  • Personhood
  • State Citizenship
  • Expatriation Act

2. allegiance

3. two sovereignties

4. claims protection from both

  • Martial Law Rule

5. cannot complain

6. voluntarily submitted himself

  • Maxims of Law
  • Tacit procuration
  • Welfare, including Social Security

7. such a form of government

  • Social Compact Theory of Government rebutted

Warning: Don’t read this if you want to keep your illusions.

“Claims protection from both” — proof that we don’t have rights

States are foreign to the federal government. 

Only three federal laws apply to people in States. The three crimes mentioned in the U.S. Constitution “…and no other crimes whatever” according to Vice President Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions.

People in States of the Union are not protected by, or subject to, the first eight amendments to the federal constitution. The first eight amendments in “The Bill of Rights” do not apply to people in States according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Twinning v. NJ (211 US 78) and in Hague v. CIO (307 U.S. 496) unless 14th Amendment citizens are involved. (the “equal protection” clause exists ONLY in the 14th Amendment).

If your State does not protect you from the federal government, perhaps you would ask why.

And bankruptcy laws do not apply to people in States unless they are also wards of the federal government. For proof see my essay Liberty and Justice for all who can qualify.

MARTIAL LAW RULE

There are some Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26) that stipulate within the Amendment that congress shall have the power to enforce the amendment.

These Martial Law Rule amendments are not enforced as the Supreme Law of the Land that “judges in every State shall be bound thereby” (Article 6, second paragraph). These amendments are enforced by congress even if contrary to state constitutions. They are enforced in federal legislative tribunals that call themselves courts. (Judicial courts are established by Article 3 section 1, Legislative tribunals are constituted under Article 1, section 8). – If you voluntarily appear in a legislative tribunal, you are claiming to be protected by a federal jurisdiction – and you cannot complain. For more information, start with my essay Gold Fringed Flag

After the civil war, the US Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 US 2, determined that the judicial branch of a State government must protect its Citizens from the federal military tribunals. Are you protected from “courts” that fly the Gold Fringed flag? 

If your State does not protect you from the federal government, perhaps you would ask why.

Expatriation Act

The day before the 14th Amendment was ratified in July 1868, Congress enacted the Expatriation Act to warn States that they cannot interfere with people who voluntarily expatriate from States. The law (Link — chapter 249 starts near the bottom of page 223) uses the term “foreign states” to include States of the Union. People expatriate from States by availing themselves of a foreign covering. Such as accepting federal welfare benefits. Just like Esau, they sold their birthright for a bowl of stew. 

Do not misread the Expatriation Act. The Act says: “This claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed:…”
Once you expatriate from the [foreign] State of the Union by seeking federal benefits, your allegiance to the foreign State of the Union is “promptly and finally disavowed” This is why the U.S. is one of the two countries on the globe that taxes their citizens wherever they are located.

• State inhabitants are not subject to federal laws except for the three crimes mentioned in the US Constitution. UNTIL they expatriate themselves by taking federal benefits.
• Judges in every state are bound to the Amendments (Article 6, second paragraph). But not the marital law amendments.
• Most freed slaves did not accept federal benefits of the Freedmen’ Bureau. They just accepted employment on the plantation and then struggled to make ends meet.
• State people (Citizens, inhabitants, persons, residents, etc) were foreign to the federal government prior to their accepting benefits of the 14th Amendment.
• Kitchens v. Steel, 112 F.Supp 383: “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government” (quoted later)
• The 14th Amendment uses the word “citizen” in lower case only. Prior to the 14th Amendment the Constitutional words “Citizen” are always Capitalized.
• lower case citizens were/are wards of the federal government. They lost their rights. Capitis Diminuito – defined later. They accepted another covering.
• They will be taken care of by the feds who will reimburse States for their upkeep.
• The IRS laws are written as if they apply to foreigners. IRS regulations define who is a citizen. It uses the same words of the 14th Amendment. (quoted later)
• Non-14th inhabitants (without SSN) are still not subject to federal laws. They did not voluntarily submit themselves to such a form of government.
• States are foreign to the federal government they created.
• The Expatriation Act tells the States that they cannot interfere with expatriation of 14th Amendment Citizens who, by accepting federal benefits, change their citizenship.

Once they become federal citizens they cannot claim State allegiance. The Expatraitation Act says “this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed”. Once a 14th Amendment citizen, always a 14th Amendment citizen — “finally disavowed” — in other words once you volunteer you cannot expatriate from the federal prison you volunteered into. This explains why US citizens are taxed everywhere in the world they move to.

The 14th Amendment uses the word birth. In 1941 According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. California, 314 US 160 at page 183: “… birth within a state does not establish citizenship thereof.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Elk v. Wilkins (112 U.S. 94) in 1884 was 16 years after the fourteenth amendment created a new type of citizenship of the United States, and 5 years after the fifteenth amendment grants the right to vote without discrimination against race. Native American Mr. Elk was NOT subject to federal laws. They would not let him pay taxes or vote.

In Elk v. Wilkins the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment:

“The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

There are other problems with the commonly held theory that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow proves that natural birth establishes citizenship “of the State wherein they reside.” This phrase refers to the State government venue that the person is in (or moved to) after his paperwork birth in the District of Columbia. We know from the Supreme Court’s Slaughter-House case that a man may “be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state” We know that State Citizenship is not established by birth. The 1941 US Supreme Court in Edwards v. California 314 US 172 at the bottom of page 183 “birth within a state does not establish citizenship thereof.”
You have to voluntarily apply for federal government citizenship. To become unequal. To receive federal protection. To change your citizenship. 

“Two sovereignties” 

citizenship, lower case c

The word citizen is always lower case in the five occurrences of the Fourteenth Amendment. Your U.S. Constitution has all eleven prior occurrences of Citizen(s) capitalized. Did the authors of the 14th Amendment suddenly forget how to use the English language? Answer: No, they were creating a federal-granted citizenship that has nothing to do with their masters, the posterity of “We The People” who created government to secure our blessings of liberty.

Posterity of “We The People” have a duty to control the artificial entity they inherited. Whereas persons (defined later) are subordinate to the creature – and must be controlled by the creature. Once you become one of the federal persons you have no standing in any court to complain.

If you have an SSN then you are no longer one of “We The People”. You have no standing in any court to complain.

“Such a form of government”

CITIZENS’ CHAIN-OF-COMMAND

“We The People” wrote and ratified a Constitution to create a government to secure the blessings of liberty to their posterity. “We The People” then found subordinates – elected or appointed – willing to swear oaths to obey the constitution. (Oaths are only taken to superiors – Hebrews 6:16. Christians will never swear oaths Matthew 5:34, James 5:12). Those who are created equal remained equal until they have a superior. Equals will not swear oaths to each other, or salute each other. “We The People” were the superiors. Oath-of-office takers are the subordinates (inferiors) who, by taking an oath of allegiance, owe allegiance to “We The People”.

We are all created equal. We equals are the posterity (of the same class) as the founders. But only if we remain equal. We have the same duty to control the government we created. But government did not want to remain as the subordinate – so they knew of ways to fool us.

Should you decide that you do not want to remain equal, you can enlist. Here is the chain of command:

1. The Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God that entitle us to create governments. (Even though creating a government was evil in the eyes of the Lord, First Samuel 12:17). No one is forced to join any particular society (The Amish did not join us. Red man is not subject to white man’s laws — see Elk v. Wilkins, later). No one gives up any natural rights. See footnote below.

2. The society that created county governments (artificial entities), which they must control. 

3. The State governments (artificial entities) that the counties created, which must be controlled by their chain of command,

4. The federal government (artificial entity) that the states created which must be controlled by their chain of command.

5. WARNING: those who accept benefits are subject to the laws of their benefactor.
By asking for benefits, 14th Amendment citizens were created by the federal government, and they will be controlled by their chain of command.  They voluntarily submitted themselves.

6. Indigent wards of the government “similarly situated” to 14th Amendment citizens.

Some people today insist that government must serve and protect them. Yet they are five ranks below where they falsely insist they are. They cannot complain. There is no redress of grievance. There is no remedy at law. They have no standing in any court. 

SOCIAL COMPACT THEORY OF GOVERNMENT

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_compact:

“Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.”

Have your neighbors infused into government an authority that “We The People”, who created government, did not have? (such as tax their neighbor, cancel their marriage, license their travel, restrict them from using life-saving medicine without your permission, cancel their debts (bankruptcy), require a wage authorization number to get a job, create identification credentials, etc.) Have they given life to an artificial entity (your graven image) that it should both speak and demand reverence and to kill? Have they given their graven image a right to demand reverence/worship (such as salute, courtroom oaths, perjury oaths)? Have they given the graven image a right to issue credentials so that all might receive an identification mark?

Thomas Jefferson: “the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights.” – letter to F. W. Gilmer 1816. Notice Jefferson’s word entering. You voluntarily enter society. Lawyers hinder your entering, just like Luke 11:52. 

Fundamentals

“We The People” is really we the States. When the original States’ senates debated ratifying the Constitution in 1788, Edmond Pendleton at the Virginia Ratifying Convention replied to Patrick Henry’s opposition to the phrase “We the People”:

“Permit me to ask the gentleman who made this objection, who but the people can delegate powers? Who but the people have the right to form government?”

Abraham Lincoln, in his First Inaugural Address, told us that whenever citizens “grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.” If you don’t understand why a president would tell citizens they can overthrow government, then you have been blinded.

Maxim of Law: “When laws imposed by the state fail, we must act by the law of nature. Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege natureae utendum est.”

14th Amendment, section1

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. …”

  • The word “born” does not refer to a natural birth.
  • The term “United States” is the name of a government, it does not refer to any of the states of the union.
  • “THE” jurisdiction thereof IS NOT the word “their” (state) jurisdictions.

One of the definitions of the word “birth” in law dictionaries means “coming into separate existence”.

Webster’s Dictionary, first edition in 1928:

  • “Brought forth…”,
  • “To be born is to be produced or brought into life.”

People are not persons. “All persons born” IS NOT referring to all people born. (more later)

The term “the United States”

The term “the United States” is used in the first sentence of the 14th amendment as something you can be born into. Don’t be tricked by this. The term “the United States” can mean several things. The name of the government, or the name of a geographical place. If a form asks if you were born in the United States, do not assume that this refers to a geographical place. It is asking if you were born into the government.

“The canon of construction which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States”

— US Supreme Court in Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281:

The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.
– U.S. Supreme Court, Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

BIRTH DOES NOT ESTABLISH CITIZENSHIP according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. California, 314 US 160 at page 183: “… birth within a state does not establish citizenship thereof.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Elk v. Wilkins (112 U.S. 94) in 1884 was 16 years after the fourteenth amendment created a new type of citizenship of the United States, and 5 years after the fifteenth amendment grants the right to vote without discrimination against race. Native American Mr. Elk was NOT subject to federal laws. They would not let him pay taxes or vote.

In Elk v. Wilkins the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment:

“The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

There are other problems with the theory that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow proves that natural birth establishes citizenship “of the State wherein they reside.” This phrase refers to the State government venue that the person is in (or moved to) after his paperwork birth in the District of Columbia. We know from the Supreme Court’s Slaughter-House case that a man may “be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state” We know that State Citizenship is not established by birth. The 1941 US Supreme Court in Edwards v. California 314 US 172 at the bottom of page 183 “birth within a state does not establish citizenship thereof.”

You have to voluntarily apply for government citizenship.

The 14th Amendment forces the States, against their will, to grant due process of law to the freed slaves before they are deprived of “life, liberty or property” – but THIS IS NOT THE “life, liberty or property” rights of the 5th Amendment. And later “to those similarly situated” – that’s you – who apply for benefits funded with federal funds. (including Social Security Numbers, welfare benefits, federal regulated employment, etc.)

Unalienable rights are not government-granted rights. Three years after the 14th Amendment, congress passed the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871 to explain the six rights granted to 14th Amendment citizens. These six rights are the “equal protection of the laws” that you now have. They are not the thousands of unalienable rights that you once had before you voluntarily submitted yourself to such a form of government.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1878 case of Davidson v. New Orleans stated that your Constitution is NOT redundant. These mean different things:

  • The 14th Amendment section 1, “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… “
  • The 5th Amendment “… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

If you don’t understand why the same words “life, liberty, or property” OR “due process of law” mean different things to different governments then perhaps you would want to know why.

Recommended reading on the topic of the 14th Amendment: 1968 Utah Supreme Court decision in Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266 has a critical examination of the problems of the 14th Amendment. The Utah Supreme Court justices said “We feel like galley slaves chained to our oars by a power from which we cannot free ourselves, but like slaves of old we think we must cry out when we can see the boat heading into the maelstrom directly ahead of us;”

In Powe v. U.S. 109 F.2d 147, 149 (1940) the court determined what the term `citizen’ means in federal statutes. Notice that the term `citizen’, when used in federal laws, excludes State citizens:

“… a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen’ means `citizen of the United States,’ and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State …”

U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542:

“The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.”

In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 S.Ct. 656, 662; 120 U.S. 678, 690 found that:

“In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen’ is generally, if not always, used in a political sense… It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution…”

The U.S. Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 S.Ct 617, 626:

“In Baldwin v. Franks … it was decided that the word `citizen’ …. was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident’, `inhabitant’, or `person’ …”

14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:

“… the term `citizen’ in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject’ in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government.”

U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed 829 (1873) “The classification citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress”

Income Tax only applies to 14th amendment citizens

Go to the Code of Federal Regulations 1.1-1 Income Tax on Individuals. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title26-vol1/pdf/CFR-2012-title26-vol1-chapI.pdf “General Rule, Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States” Then read Title 26 Code of Federal Regulations section 1.1-1(c) to see what kind of citizen they are talking about.

Who is a citizen? The IRS uses the same definition of the 14th Amendment.

This is the IRS definition of citizen. Notice the phrase — “and subject to its jurisdiction” — from the 14th amendment that the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins said was only for someone ” completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

The IRS is not even an agency of the United States Government. And the application for a Social Security Card is an IRS form. (More… )

Personhood

The plural of the word person is people. NOT persons.

The word persons is a legal term that is only abstractly related to people.

Your government has distinct definitions for different categories of people. Example: The U.S. Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 S.Ct 617, 626:

“… it was decided that the word `citizen’…. was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident’, `inhabitant’, or `person’ …”

But the 14th Amendment made 14th Amendment citizenship somewhat synonymous with person. (except that corporations can be persons and Roe v. Wade determined that a fetus was not a 14th amendment citizen but other decisions said a fetus could be a person.)

PERSONS

The word “person” is used in many laws. If you don’t know what the term means, you might be fooled into thinking that you are one. People are not persons.

There is a maxim of law Homo vocabulum est; persona juris civilities. “Man is a term of nature; person, of the civil law”. It is from the same Roman civil law that reduces an ungrateful freedman to his original condition of slavery.

The legislated word person does indeed refer to natural people, but only to those who have a status within the government. The word Person also includes corporations, municipalities, universities, labor organizations, partnerships, trustees, legal representatives, and illegitimate children. And sometimes a viable fetus.

American Law and Procedure, Vol 13 (1910):

Page 137 “This word `person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use … A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.”

Page 162 “A moments reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.”

For example: the non-proper noun ALL CAPITALIZED NAME that is on your driver’s license is an artificial fiction of law. The government calls it a person, even though only proper nouns can be a person, place or thing.

FURTHER EVIDENCE OF A SNARE of presumed contracts

“By their covetousness they shall with feigned words make merchandise of you”. (Second Peter 2:3)

The book “Ancient Law” by Sir Henry Sumner Maine (John Murray Publisher, Albemarle Street, London. 1861) documented the conspiracy to ensnare you with ancient laws that pledged generations of labor:

  • Page 170: “. . . we may say that the movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from Status to Contract.”
  • Page 26: “But I now employ the expression “Legal Fiction”* to signify any assumption which conceals, or affects to conceal, the fact that a rule of law has undergone alteration, its letter remaining unchanged, its operation being modified.”
  • “The fact is in both cases that the law has been wholly changed; the fiction is that it remains what it always was.”
  • “They [i.e., “legal fictions”] satisfy the desire for improvement [“innovation in the law”], which is not quite wanting, at the same time that they do not offend the superstitious disrelish for change which is always present. At a particular stage of social progress they are invaluable expedients for overcoming the rigidity of law . . .”
  • Page 27: “Now legal fictions are the greatest of obstacles to symmetrical classification.
  • The rule of law remains sticking in the system, but it is a mere shell. It has been long ago undermined, and a new rule hides itself under its cover.”
  • Page 30: “. . . the wide diffusion of legal fictions, and the efficiency with which they perform their two-fold office of transforming a system of laws and of concealing the transformation.”
  • Page 31: “. . . we habitually employ a double language and entertain, as it would appear, a double and inconsistent set of ideas.”
  • “Yet the moment the judgment has been rendered and reported [after a court has issued its decision], we slide unconsciously or unavowedly into a new language and a new train of thought.”
  • Page 32: The fact that the old rule has been repealed, and that a new one has replaced it, eludes us . . .”

* Bouvier’s Dictionary of the Law; 1856: “FICTIONS OF LAW”.

“The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person or thing, a quality which is not natural to it . . .”

Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors, who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it, under the pretense of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness, which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact, what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench. 4 Benth. Ev. 300.”

Notice the word “feign”, as in Second Peter 2:3 quoted earlier. But they don’t even have to feign anymore. The “legislator… need not feign” because you reduced yourself back to your original servitude.

STATE CITIZENSHIP

Except for the original 13 States, Vermont, Kentucky, Texas and California – Federal territories became States to free themselves from federal jurisdiction. How about you? Did your statehood free yourselves from federal jurisdiction?

Voluntarily Submitted Himself

Maxim of law regarding volunteers

  • Volenti non fit injuria
  • “That to which a man consents cannot be considered an injury.”
  • “He who consents to an act is not damaged by it.”
  • “He who consents cannot receive an injury”
  • “To him consenting no injury is done.”

Texas Supreme Court in Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 SW 944: “The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, … or even from the Constitution, but they exist inherently in every man, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution and restricted only to the extent they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”

Ab assuetis non fit injuria according to Black’s Law Dictionary

“From things in which there has been long acquiescence, no legal injury or wrong arises. If a persons neglects to insist on his right, he is deemed to have abandoned it.”

Maxim of Law: Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. He has invited what has come, and he must accept it.

Does an artificial entity manage your affairs, such as old-age planning, and you did not interfere to prevent it? And you wonder why we don’t have rights anymore. 

Voluntarily Submitted, Part 2 – Welfare, including Social Security applications

  • You had a free will. You once held the truth that we are all created equal. But you did not want to be equal. You wanted Personhood, you are no longer part of “We The People” class of people who are responsible for controlling what “We The People” created.
  • The received law-of-the-land (in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws) tells us that availing oneself of benefits “oblige the inferior to take the will of him on who he depends“.
  • Every Law Dictionary will tell you “The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freedman to his original slavery” Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinam servitutem redigunt.
  • In the words of Samuel Adams, speech at the Pennsylvania State House, 1 August 1776: “crouch down and lick the hands which feed you”.
  • There is no law that requires anyone to get or have a Social Security Number to live or work in the United States. (More…)
  • Congress has a right to control 14th Amendment citizens who accept benefits. Congress may regulate what they fund.
  • Congress has a fiduciary duty to maximize the value of collateral they put up for the national debt. If you accept benefits then YOU are that collateral.
  • And 2000 years ago Plutarch said “It is truly said that the first destroyer of the liberties of a people is he who gave them bounties and largess. “
  • Congress borrowed money from foreign sources to give you the benefits that you asked for. They borrowed on your behalf, and in your name. They have every right to put you up as collateral for the national debt. (Novation). You cannot complain that your representative represented you. Pay up.

In 1770, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, in his book Cycles of Democracy, had this comparison with the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

‘A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.’

Change of Status

The Civil Law (Roman Law) quickly reduces an ungrateful freeman to a condition of servitude.

You voluntarily give up everything when you confess to your new covering.  

The Latin word Capitis is a head covering. Diminutio is a taking away, loss
or deprivation. See First Corinthians 11. A Christian man is the covering for his family. 
A competent man would never acknowledge that he cannot manage his own affairs.
One you cannot manage your own affairs, a civil Roman government is your covering. 

Welfare for individuals is not the Constitutional “General Welfare”

To counter those rumors that the “general welfare” clause in the proposed Constitution would authorize any kind of welfare, James Madison, in Federalist Paper #41, explained its clear intent. He stated that it “is an absurdity” to claim that the General Welfare clause confounds or misleads, because this introductory clause is followed by enumeration of specific particulars that explain and qualify the meaning of phrase “general welfare”. That’s right! Your Constitution was ratified under the assurance that it would never be interpreted to provide welfare to individuals.

This was still true when Congressman Davy Crockett made his famous “it is not yours to give” speech. It is not their money to give, not even for disaster relief in a federal territory.

This was still true in 1897 when President Grover Cleveland vetoed an appropriation to provide disaster aid to victims of a Texas drought. His veto stated: “I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds… I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution. The lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people should support the government, the government should not support the people.

Note that 1897 was 2 years after the Supreme Court ruled that income tax was unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan Co. (157 US 429, 158 U.S. 601), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers%27_Loan_%26_Trust_Co.)

Teddy Roosevelt speech to the New York City Chamber of Commerce November 11, 1902:

“At a time when …there is also a growing tendency to demand the illegitimate and unwise transfer to the government of much of the work that should be done by private persons, singly or associated together, it is a pleasure to address a body whose members possess to an eminent degree the traditional American self-reliance of spirit which makes them scorn to ask from the government, whether of State or of Nation, anything but a fair field and no favor; who confide not in being helped by others, but in their own skill, energy, and business capacity to achieve success. The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight that he shall not be a mere passenger, but shall do his share in the work that each generation of us finds ready to hand; and, furthermore, that in doing his work he shall show not only the capacity for sturdy self-help but also self-respecting regard for the rights of others.”

SO HOW CAN WELFARE EXIST?

Indigent

The Social Security Act, Section 205(c)(2)(B)(i)(II), requires applicants for Social Security Numbers to be an “applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part by Federal funds“. But only Fourteenth Amendment citizen /persons /indigents can qualify for federal funds. The application form is for indigents only. And then only for the legislated purpose. It would be a crime to say you qualified for indigent benefits if you did not qualify. If you were never destitute, then you never qualified for federal funds. Yet your falsified confession is on a permanent federal application for a SSN. (More…). You voluntarily went into the federal venue (by mail or in person) and asked for them to manage your affairs (such as old age planning).

Even though it was not a Social Security case, six years after the Social Security Act, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to use the California definition of indigent in Edwards v. California 314 US 172: “…only persons who are presently destitute of property and without resources to obtain the necessities of life, and who have no relatives or friends able and willing to support them.”

That’s right. If you applied for a SSN, then you voluntarily submitted yourself as a permanent ward of the federal government. If your new master-lord-provider-protector wants FICA to take some, or all, of your wages, you cannot complain because:

  • You confessed on a permanent federal document that you qualified as someone destitute of property.
  • You confessed that you qualified as indigent because you were without resources to obtain the necessities of life.
  • You confessed that you have no relatives or friends able and willing to support you.
  • You asked your new provider to “stand in the relation of protector” to yourself (see the Latin definition of patronus). Your agent will now represent you, no matter how abhorrent the outcome is.
  • There is no prescription for procuration.
  • You have received unjust enrichment at the expense of others thereby creating a constructive contract. The Social Security Act Title VIII section 801 requires you to pay Social Security AND OTHER TAXES. This is also repeated word-for-word in Section 3101(a) of the Internal Revenue Code: “In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages…”
  • The Buck Act extends federal jurisdiction to anyone receiving a federal benefit, regardless of where they are in the world. Government has a right to regulate what they fund.

Busser v. Snyder, 37 ALR 1515:

“An Old Age Assistance Law is prohibited by a constitutional provision that no appropriation shall be made for charitable or benevolent purposes to any person.”

Once you become a ward of the government, guess what?

Kitchens v. Steel, 112 F.Supp 383:

“A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government and of the state in which he resides, and one possessing such double citizenship owes allegiance …[to each]… jurisdiction he is subject.”

“Cannot Complain” — we don’t have the right to complain because we consented to be governed

According to the Supreme Court in Ashwander v. TVA (297 US 288) anyone who avails himself of a benefit cannot then question the Constitutionality of the law that he benefited from. The Supreme Court WILL NOT consider the case.

“The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.”

Partaking of benefits is absolute estoppel against complaining that you are participating in a fraud. YOU are the one who signed under penalty of perjury, stating that you knew what you were doing. Whatever you say can be used against you in a court of law. The citizen cannot complain. Stop complaining.

Maxim of law: “No one can unjustly enrich himself at the expense of others” (this creates a constructive contract that courts enforce “as arise when the law prescribes the rights and liabilities of persons…similar to the rights and liabilities in cases of express contract”). Also look up “constructive fraud”. If you unjustly enriched yourself at the expense of others, now is the time to pay it back. So pay up.

John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 15 “For what compact [contract] can be made with a man that is not master of his own life?”

It is no wonder a judge wants you to be represented by competent counsel. It is presumed that you are insane if you expect to have rights while also availing yourself of the benefits of being a ward of the state.

The Constitution was constituted by constitutors, oh my!

==== ::::: ==== 

Steven D. Miller is a freelance writer producing informative blog posts, white papers, eBooks and high-density documentaries. He is available to offer hope to any audience that yearns to breathe free. Contact him at Steven.Miller@LibertyContentWriter.com
LibertyContentWriter.com

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: