Allegiance and Citizenship in General

[palani]

Talbot vs Janson, 1795, 3 Dallas 133

http://books.google.com/books?id=DLsGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA144&dq=expatriation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2NmkUOnlH-GA2gX89oCwDA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=expatriation&f=false

http://i50.tinypic.com/2e1etd2.jpg

This bears repeating


Yet, it is to be remembered, that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system; and it is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the most pertinaciously enforced, there are striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage, which, under every modification of government, must be paid to the inherent rights of man.

[palani]

Allegiance and fealty is where you bend a knee, take anothers hand between yours and swear an oath to him. It is jurisdiction ... oath spoken. As stated .. a "person" is required to accept that oath (sort of reminds me of that offer I made 4 years ago in the legal section to accept the oaths of anyone who desired to be part of my government).

Citizenship is another admiralty concept but note that a compact is required. Now you can go to court and bring up constitutional issues and will be told that the constitution has no place in that courtroom. Without this compact though the court has no jurisdiction. Courts of admiralty act on contracts only and without the contract they are stating on the record that they have no jurisdiction.

Notice that the supreme court on the case sited sat in ADMIRALTY. The issue was of an American who had taken French citizenship and proceeded to take as a prize a Dutch vessel (France and Holland being at war).

[Hatha Sunahara]

They make us pledge 'allegiance' to the flag of the US of A. Here we have the best of all possible worlds: Citizens pledging allegiance.

Isn't there an implied contract when you pledge allegiance? In exchange for protection, I pledge allegiance. Isn't that a contract? And what if the government who wants your allegiance refuses to protect you? In fact, what if it makes you have to protect yourself from it? Does it still have jurisdiction over you? This is one of the arguments Marc Stevens makes to avoid jurisdiction. If the cops don't have a duty to protect you, then you owe the state (which doesn't exist) no allegiance.

You're just muddying the waters here with your interpretation of citizenship. Citizenship implies you get benefits for giving up rights and accepting privileges. I'd rather have my rights.


Hatha

[iOWNme]

'Jurisdiction' is a MYTH. Just like 'Consent of the Governed'.


If i give you my consent, THEN YOU ARENT GOVERNING ME.

If i dont give you my consent, THEN YOU CANT GOVERN ME.


The moment 'consent' is given, the illusion of 'Governing' vanishes into thin air - Where it came from!


The entire idea of citizenship is SLAVERY. The thought that if a man 'agrees' with an idea, that he has given up ALL MORALS that relate to that idea is RIDICULOUS. If you hired a plumber and signed a 'contract' then you found out that the plumber was robbing you and killing your animals, would the contract still be valid?

If the DoI said 'All men are created equal'......And then 12 years later the US CON stated 'The Federal Government has the power to TAX',

Palani - WHERE did the 'Jurisdiction' and power to 'Tax' come from that is ordained in the US Constitution?

[Hatha Sunahara]

Citizenship is not optional. You cannot opt out. Try renouncing your citizenship and see how cooperative the government is.

And Sui Juris, don't forget the part that not only does the US government have the power to tax, it claims the power to tax your earnings regardless of where you earned them. If you're a citizen and live in France, your earnings are subject to US taxes. No other country does this.


Hatha

[palani]

They make us pledge 'allegiance' to the flag of the US of A. Here we have the best of all possible worlds: Citizens pledging allegiance. When the case cite was written those folks were a little closer to the feudal system. Nowhere is it suggested that citizens need to pledge allegiance. In fact I would say non-citizens are the ones pledging allegiance.


Isn't there an implied contract when you pledge allegiance? Danged right there is but there is no person you are giving it to. Bend a knee and take the "lords" right hand in yours. Do that and you will have spoken an oath (jurisdiction).




In exchange for protection, I pledge allegiance. Isn't that a contract? Ever attempt to enforce it?


And what if the government who wants your allegiance refuses to protect you? Cops have no duty to protect you. Do you still want to contribute a donut to them?


In fact, what if it makes you have to protect yourself from it?
Necessity works for you as well as for government.


Does it still have jurisdiction over you? If you THINK it does.


You're just muddying the waters here with your interpretation of citizenship. Citizenship implies you get benefits for giving up rights and accepting privileges. I'd rather have my rights.


Hatha
I am giving you historical background from the supreme court as of 1795. What makes you think this case is not as valid today as it was then? Words are symbols. Whoever assigns their meaning is sovereign. If you want to be less of a subject then start with your own lexicon.

[palani]

If you hired a plumber and signed a 'contract' then you found out that the plumber was robbing you and killing your animals, would the contract still be valid? If the contract was valid when you entered into it then what has changed? I hope you aren't suggesting that the additional actions were considered any part of the original contract. The contract is valid but the additional activities of robbing and killing your animals is a tort. It is not covered by contract.


If the DoI said 'All men are created equal'......And then 12 years later the US CON stated 'The Federal Government has the power to TAX', The DofI in its final sentence suggests the signers would pledge all of their property. Do you know what a pledge


Palani - WHERE did the 'Jurisdiction' and power to 'Tax' come from that is ordained in the US Constitution? If you THINK they have the power to tax then they have the power to tax. All power comes from you. Who else would have the authority to tax you but YOU?

[palani]

Citizenship is not optional. You cannot opt out. Try renouncing your citizenship and see how cooperative the government is. They do have a method. It requires you go to a U.S. embassy outside the continental u.s. and fill out a form. Hopefully you have all your ducks in a row when you attempt this though.

But then I don't know your circumstances. Have you ever been naturalized? I know I have not so have no paperwork to present to actually prove I am a citizen. Since I have seen no paperwork then I suspect it doesn't exist and the burden is on the state or federal government to prove such paperwork does exist. Good luck with that!!!!

What I am saying is I see no need to follow a prescribed procedure to renounce a citizenship that cannot be proven to exist.


And Sui Juris, don't forget the part that not only does the US government have the power to tax, it claims the power to tax your earnings regardless of where you earned them. If you're a citizen and live in France, your earnings are subject to US taxes. No other country does this. I bet if you lived in Russia as a self-declared or naturalized citizen you would not be required to report the rubles you received for your labor. Don't they only ask for U.S. federal reserve notes?

[Hatha Sunahara]

Isn't the role of Citizen supposed to be the same as 'Subject' in monarchist countries? If you were a subject of the Queen of England, then she would have an obligation to protect you. She swore it sitting on some scottich stone called the Lia Fail when she was crowned--that she would protect her subjects. Here's a history of that stone: http://jahtruth.net/stone.htm

Doesn't it strike you? The similarity between citizenship and a protection racket? Only if you are a citizen, you're a cosigner to all the government's loans.

I get your point Palani about the burden of proof of citizenship. It's like the burden of proof of jurisdiction. And that is your consent. But isn't citizenship like an adhesion contract? Once you have consented, you are not allowed to withdraw it. Or it is exceptionally difficult to withdraw--involving penalties. Maybe this is what is behind the recent proliferation of secession petitions to the President? Once they have established jurisdiction, they will not let it go. We shall see how they are going to ignore the will of the people on this.


Hatha

[palani]

Isn't the role of Citizen supposed to be the same as 'Subject' in monarchist countries? A citizen is a subject of municipal law. All the laws of the country are described as 'municipal laws'. The district of columbia is a municipality. I am not a citizen because 1) I was not born in the district of columbia 2) I live in an unincorporated area.



Doesn't it strike you? The similarity between citizenship and a protection racket? Only if you are a citizen, you're a cosigner to all the government's loans. Doesn't the declaration of independence state that "we pledge our fortunes"? Shouldn't you be willing to pay for the services government provides?


. But isn't citizenship like an adhesion contract? Once you have consented, you are not allowed to withdraw it. Contracts are dynamic. They change all the time. There is nothing cast in stone (except things cast in stone). Go back and read that opening case site again. Citizenship may be changed any time you like because it is based upon COMPACT.


Or it is exceptionally difficult to withdraw--involving penalties. The principal penalty is uncertainty and the inability to return. I expect if you beg enough you might be permitted to go thru the naturalization process.



Maybe this is what is behind the recent proliferation of secession petitions to the President? Signing petitions (giving notice) is the first part of due process. The petition gives the president the right to inquire. That is what he ought to be doing right about now.