Civil Status and Law of Domicile

Legal documents can be uploaded, posted, and discussed in this section
Post Reply
mrueg
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:30 am
County: Ottawa
Your State: Michigan

Civil Status and Law of Domicile

Post by mrueg » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:39 am

It is my belief that many Americans (state Citizen) lost the protection of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights upon filing an inaccurate SS-5, application for a Social Security Number. The mechanism employed is the changing of an individual’s legal domicile. It is accomplished by convincing people they are U.S. citizens in relation to block number 5 on the SS-5 application. This record establishes a person’s Numident Record or tax status and thus has far reaching implications.

The IRS operates as the debt collector for the Federal Reserve collecting on the debts the United States owes to the Federal Reserve. The status of the SSN determines if you are liable for the debts of the United States. The IRS has nothing to do with creating or changing your tax status, only the Social Security Administration.

The 14th Amendment, Federal Reserve Act of 1913, banking emergency of 1933 and the resulting change in money/currency, Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the Social Security Act of 1935 all play a significant role in what has transpired.

There are court cases and legal definitions that validate the term ‘citizenship’ and ‘domicile’ are synonymous, most notably the legal definition right out of Black’s law 6th edition.

Domicile. A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa. Super. 310, 213 A.2d 94. Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one's home are the requisites of establishing a
"domicile" therein. Montoya v. Collier, 85 N.M. 356, 512 P.2d 684, 686. The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges. The established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him. Also see Abode; Residence.

"Citizenship," "habitancy," and "residence" are sever¬ally words which in particular cases may mean precisely the same as "domicile," while in other uses may have different meanings.

"Residence" signifies living in a particular locality while "domicile" means living in that locality with in¬tent to make it a fixed and permanent home.
Schreiner v. Schreiner, Tex. Civ. App., 502 S.W.2d 840, 843.

For purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction, "citizen¬ship" and "domicile" are synonymous. [ Hendry v. Ma¬sonite Corp., C.A. Miss., 455 F.2d 955.]
Elected domicile. The domicile of parties fixed in a contract between them for the purposes of such contract. Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)


It is my belief then that the “citizenship” asked for on the SS-5 is in reference to a person’s domicile in contrast to the term “nationality” which is used to establish a person’s political status. This is verified by looking at your passport, looking up definitions under Title 8 U.S.C., and looking to the United States Government Printing Office, Style Manual 2008, under 5.23, designating natives of the States.

There is also this court case which establishes the two distinct capacities in any civilized country;

(656) - In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: "The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil." P. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying:

"The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status."

And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, domicilium, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which

"the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, must depend"

Page 169 U. S. 657

he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political status, his country, patria, and his
"nationality, that is, natural allegiance," "may depend on different laws in different countries."

Pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word "citizen" not as equivalent to "subject," but rather to "inhabitant," and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.
[ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) ]

“It is locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution, in such matters as judicial procedure, and not the status of the people who live in it.”
[ Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) ]
When looking at our locality or domicile in relation to the United States we will need some more definitions. It is important to mention law of domicile is related to territory and who has jurisdiction over that territory. Many people look to Title 8 for definitions but that is related to an individual’s nationality not legal or civil status. So, let’s look at some court cites to determine jurisdictional boundaries.

“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.” [Designations Added]

[ Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, (1945) ]


Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
[ Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) ]


In the United States, each state constitutes a discrete and independent sovereignty, and consequently the laws of one state do not operate of their own force in any other state.
16 Am Jur J2d, "Conflict of Laws", Section 2.
[Ballentine's Law Dictionary, third edition]


We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. 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. Slaughter- House Cases, 16 Wall. 74.

[ United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) ]


“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
[ Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905) ]


“Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”

[ CAHA v. U.S., (1894) ]


It seems quite clear that the states have original jurisdiction and sovereignty over their territory. The states are also considered foreign governments to each other and to the federal government. So, this would validate a state Citizen civil status as being territorially foreign to the national government domiciled in the District of Columbia. Another term commonly used to denote a foreign entity is “alien”.


“The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.”
Volume 20: Corpus Juris Secundum,
[ P 1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L. Ed. 287 ]

28 U.S. Code §3002 – Definitions
(15) “United States” means –
(A) a Federal Corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States


U.C.C Article §9-307. Location of Debtor
(h) [Location of the United States]
The United States is located in the District of Columbia


Now looking to block 5 on the SS-5, Citizenship, what are our choices if someone wants to show their civil status as a state Citizen. There is no option that says state Citizen is there? It says U.S. citizen, Legal Alien Allowed to Work, Legal Alien Not Allowed to Work, or Other. It is my belief that Legal Alien Allowed to Work would be the proper civil status for people who wish to maintain their true physical state domicile as an alien or foreign entity in relation to the United States.

The SS-5 numident record is used to adjudicate ALL financial instruments or securities. It is used to establish federal jurisdiction over Americans by changing their domicile from the state they are living and working in to an elected domicile in District of Columbia. Under the Constitution, Congress has exclusive legislative authority over the District and they also have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.
Once a state Citizen changes their citizenship ( domicile of choice ) to U.S. citizen they are essentially electing to use a federal government franchise domiciled in D.C.

This puts them under the legislative democracy (socialist) national government. It empowers the United States to operate beyond the limits which the Founders had intended to create. This also empowers the State governments by turning the man into a temporary resident or alien in respect to their own de jure state Constitution and laws. Now the man has to ask permission from the state government in the form of permits and licensing to participate in what was previously an inalienable natural right protected by the Constitution. The individual has exchanged Rights for Privileges and the system claims it was done through voluntary contract. This creates an immense sum of revenue and control for governments and their agencies.

From my research this can be tied back to the passage of the 14th amendment, which many have questioned the constitutional legitimacy of due to the actions taken to get it passed and whether it was ever properly ratified. Many claim the Southern states were granted re-entry into the Union only on the condition that they ratify the Amendment. This is the amendment that created the 2nd class federal citizen which most Americans have been duped into through contract, the SS-5. This is also the amendment that gave the United States nation-state status, since they now had their own government, territory, and body politic (people).


With the actions of the 73rd Congress, all the U.S. citizens property and labor were pledged to underwrite the new currency. This is why U.S. citizens do not and cannot own any property, it has been pledged for the debts of the United States. The federal government and Congress could never have pledged the property of state Citizens, they lacked any delegated authority from the states because the states lacked any delegated authority from the people to commit such an immoral act of putting people into bondage to securitize or underwrite a fiat paper currency otherwise known as a Federal Reserve Note. A non-redeemable security printed by a private credit monopoly. Here are some quotes from the floor of Congress on the topic.


“The ‘New Deal’ lawyers now have no hesitancy in appearing in court and asserting that private citizens can contract away their constitutional rights”.
[ Louis T. McFadden on floor of Congress, 1930s ]


“Under the new law [see Public Laws of the 73rd Congress, March 9, 1933] the money is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and banker’s acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.” - Congressional Record, March 9, 1933, house, Congressman Patman, 73rd Congress, Special Session, 1st, Volume 77, Part 1, p. 83

[Food for thought, when referencing people of the Nation, which Nation are they referring to?]

“I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation - they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation - to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected for the Government…. The money collected on interest charges should go into the Treasury. Has that ever been done? No; it has never been done… if the law had been complied with they would owe this Government billions of dollars today.” - Congressional Record March 13, 1933, House, Congressman Patman, 73rd Congress, Special Session, 1st Session, Volume 77, Part 1, p. 292


“The people have a valid claim against the… Federal Reserve banks… We ought to find out the exact amount of the people’s claim… and we should collect that amount immediately… and the Federal Reserve banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately… Unless this is done by us, I predict that the American people, outraged, robbed, pillaged, insulted, and betrayed as they are in their own land, will rise in their wrath and send a President here who will sweep the money changers out of the temple.” - Congressional Record, June 10, 1932, House, Congressman McFadden, 72nd Congress, 1st Session, Volume 75, Part 11, pp. 12602, 12603


The debate of state Citizen verse U.S. citizen has been ruled on in the courts many times. Here are a few more court cites which establish there is a distinct difference.

The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to

Page 201 U. S. 75

act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: that an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges.

[ Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) ]


“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”

[ Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900) ]


“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
[ Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905) ]


This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. 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.
[ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 102 (1884) ]


“Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”

[ CAHA v. U.S., (1894) ]



In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations as when it is legislating for the United States. See Downes v. Bidwell, supra; Territory of Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197; Dorr v. United States, supra; Dowdell v. United States, 221 U. S. 325, 221 U. S. 332; Ocampo v. United States, 234 U. S. 91, 234 U. S. 98; Public Utility Commissioners v. Ynchausti & Co., supra, 251 U.S. 251 U. S. 406-407; Balzac v. Porto Rico, supra. And, in general, the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guaranties applicable. See Balzac v. Porto Rico, supra. The constitutional restrictions on the power of Congress to deal with articles brought into or sent out of the United States do not apply to articles brought into or sent out of the Philippines. Despite the restrictions of §§ 8 and 9 of Article I of the Constitution, such articles may be taxed by Congress, and without apportionment. Downes v. Bidwell, supra. It follows that articles brought from the Philippines into the United States are imports in the sense that they are brought from territory which is not a part of the United States into the territory of the United States, organized by and under the Constitution, where alone the import clause of the Constitution is applicable.

[ Hooven v. Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) ]


The Supreme Court of the United States stated: “The rights of Citizens of the States, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.”

[ U.S. V. Anthony ]

[T]he body of learning we call conflict of laws elsewhere is called private international law because it is applied to adjustment of private interests, while public international law is applicable to the relations between states.16

[ Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union ]
[ 346 US 485, 495; 98 L Ed 228; 74 S Ct 161 ]


But a state and the federal government each has citizens of its own, and the same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state. The government of the United States can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the states.

[ U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L Ed 588 ]
[ Black's Law Dictionary, fourth edition ]



There is much more evidence to be collected and organized to validate that a nefarious plot has in fact been carried out against the good people of America. It may be hard to comprehend the vileness of such grotesque actions that completely violate the principles of our Republican forms of government and the freedom it was meant to protect. I find it very similar to the plight of the Founding Fathers, an oppressive tyrannical regime unfit for ruling. It is my hope that we, as a society, at this time can correct the errors of the past by using the timeless principles established in those important founding documents. Through the use of higher thought, logic, and reason we can claim our freedom without violence and bloodshed. I would like to end with a quote that was attributed to Edward Mandell House, also known as “Colonel” House. Edward Mandell House was a very influential person in the early 20th century. He is considered the mastermind of Woodrow Wilson’s election to President; was the chief advisor to Wilson during his Administration from 1913 until 1921; the “unseen guardian angel” of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913; one of the founders of the League of Nations; founder of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921; and important advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. He is also attributed with writing the book Phillip Dru: Administrator, which was published anonymously in 1912. That book, classified as a futuristic political novel, is a modern-day Communist Manifesto.

Edward Mandell House to Woodrow Wilson
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.

By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.

Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.

After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.”

Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”

For anyone that is interested in more information, has questions, or would like to help by passing along information or evidence that can be used to build a solid foundation and decipher the truth in order to help the people, please contact Always4truth@protonmail.com

User avatar
Destry
Site Admin
Posts: 768
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:38 pm
County: Fairbanks
Your State: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Civil Status and Law of Domicile

Post by Destry » Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:31 pm

I have read this before. Thanks for posting this jem. Hope to see you this weekend at the MGJA meeting.
“First, let no one rule your mind or body. Take special care that your thoughts remain unfettered... . Give men your ear, but not your heart. Show respect for those in power, but don't follow them blindly. Judge with logic and reason, but comment not. Consider none your superior whatever their rank or station in life. Treat all fairly, or they will seek revenge. Be careful with your money. Hold fast to your beliefs and others will listen.”
“Wise? No, I simply learned to think.”

patrick
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:54 pm
County: Ottawa
Your State: Michigan

Re: Civil Status and Law of Domicile

Post by patrick » Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:42 pm

Anyone that reads this and is interested please reach out. Last night on the open mic part of the national call when trying to speak to this issue Robert came on and chose to censor me and kicked me off the call. I'm not sure why other than the fact I was questioning and challenging the status quo. We are fighting for the same thing, individual natural rights that protect us from government intrusion into our private life. Yes, I have a different view of the current situation, does that make me your enemy? This research could prove to be invaluable to the people looking for understanding and knowledge. I find it disheartening that open discussion and free speech have already been stomped out in an organization claiming to stand behind the Constitution and the principles it was written to protect. It was not my intention to offend but the truth is usually a divisive force and that is all I'm looking for, truth. The research in relation to an mans' civil status validates what this assembly has been working toward. The only difference is I don't see the current situation as illegal or unconstitutional. There are established principles of law that they rely on to enforce what they are doing, we NEED to know what they are if we are to protect ourselves. I was hoping to find friends and allies to help, I surely did not expect to be called a provocateur and a BAR member or something along those lines. Either way, the fight goes on. Good luck to you all.

User avatar
Destry
Site Admin
Posts: 768
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:38 pm
County: Fairbanks
Your State: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Civil Status and Law of Domicile

Post by Destry » Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:14 pm

You and Lewis Hammond et al have a form of thinking that is not compatible with our assemblies. You have your heads stuck in the foreign bankrupt corporation and cannot see the differences between jurisdictions. You are operating in the De Facto corporation and trying to bring their policies and codes into our land jurisdiction assemblies. Why not bring WalMart's employee codes into our assemblies? Or Mexico's codes? Or Canada's codes? It is no different. As long as you continue in this manner, our assemblies have absolutely no use for you. You are a provocateur and it makes me wonder if you are on a George Soros payroll., Apparently you cannot listen or learn as you appear to know it all already.
“First, let no one rule your mind or body. Take special care that your thoughts remain unfettered... . Give men your ear, but not your heart. Show respect for those in power, but don't follow them blindly. Judge with logic and reason, but comment not. Consider none your superior whatever their rank or station in life. Treat all fairly, or they will seek revenge. Be careful with your money. Hold fast to your beliefs and others will listen.”
“Wise? No, I simply learned to think.”

patrick
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:54 pm
County: Ottawa
Your State: Michigan

Re: Civil Status and Law of Domicile

Post by patrick » Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:27 pm

Commerce is a universal platform for all to interact. All sovereigns are engaged in commerce and all sovereigns are liable for their contracts and debts. This research is in relation to exactly what you are talking about. With the civil status of a legal alien in relation to the United States Corporation domiciled in Washington D.C. their corporate code does NOT apply, just like you mentioning WalMart's Code or Canada's Code. By correcting the legal/civil status on the SS-5 it effects the relation of a mans' commercial strawman status. A legal alien is NOT under the jurisdiction of De Facto U.S. code, look to Title 18 242. If the U.S. used it's corporate code against an legal alien(foreign) entity it would be a violation of private international law. A lawful alien would be under the jurisdiction of Congress as they would be an immigrant. It's word games in relation to the SS-5, legal alien and lawful alien are not one in the same. In statutory law citizenship is synonymous with domicile. The United States operates in a dual capacity as well as the states. If an individual voluntarily chooses U.S. citizen on the SS-5 they are electing a corporate domicile in D.C. which is outside the protection of the constitutions. This also makes you a state resident as a person can only have one domicile. As a state resident we are no longer state citizens and thus are NOT entitled to the protection of the Constitutions. Louis T. McFadden stated, "we now have attorney's claiming Americans can contract away their constitutionally protected rights". In common law jurisdictions the only status the matters is the civil status NOT the political status. The birth certificate creates the political status also called nationality. The SS-5 would be the document that creates the commercial civil status. The civil status is based on the law of domicile, this is nothing new. The SS-5 states, if there is a change in citizenship(domicile) you must submit a SS-5 to update the record. This is bigger than the De Facto United States which only has jurisdiction over federal territory and federal property(this includes U.S. franchises people take on through the SS-5), this is about commerce and the laws established to settle disputes between multiple jurisdictions. I do not claim to know everything, this is new research to me over the last few months. I do not typically get involved with groups, I just try to follow where the research leads. You all may be right, they may all be criminals and if that is the case studying law is a waste of time anyway because in the end it will come down to the use of Force, might is right, mobocracy. I have no intention of forcing anyone to believe or accept anything, to each their own. I was excited to share new information that I viewed as incredibly valuable, take it or leave it.

User avatar
Destry
Site Admin
Posts: 768
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:38 pm
County: Fairbanks
Your State: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Civil Status and Law of Domicile

Post by Destry » Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:32 pm

My point proven... :lol:
“First, let no one rule your mind or body. Take special care that your thoughts remain unfettered... . Give men your ear, but not your heart. Show respect for those in power, but don't follow them blindly. Judge with logic and reason, but comment not. Consider none your superior whatever their rank or station in life. Treat all fairly, or they will seek revenge. Be careful with your money. Hold fast to your beliefs and others will listen.”
“Wise? No, I simply learned to think.”

BLMSSM
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:36 am
County: Marion
Your State: Texas

Re: Civil Status and Law of Domicile

Post by BLMSSM » Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:46 am

All glory be to God for this Temple.

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Documents”