The Evil Amongst U.S. Part 3 By Patrick Michael
I left off part 2 with the excerpt from Francis Wharton’s Treatise in relation to him explaining citizenship in the United States, hopefully it was not too confusing. This topic would definitely be one I would recommend digging deeper into. Next, I would like to share parts of some more accumulated research on the two legal states mentioned in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case that also correlate to the Public/Private division of international law.
‘There are some certain concepts which are important or are regarded as a determinative factor in the conflict of laws. Such concepts include; domicile and nationality
The developments of technology and mobility from one state or another brought the emergence of problems. This is because in the process of moving about, an individual has to determine which law applies to him, his marriage, his business transactions, etc.
The development of passports came about in a bid to solve this problem. Passports act as a connection to a legal jurisdiction; which people carry about wherever they go.
Domicile is the status or attribution of being a permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction. A person can remain domiciled in a jurisdiction even after they have left it, if they have maintained sufficient links with that jurisdiction or have not displayed an intention to leave permanently (that is to say, if that person has not yet moved to a different state, or has not yet formed an intention to remain there indefinitely). LORD CHELMFORD in WAICKER V HUME[1] in defining domicile said,
“That place is properly the domicile of a person in which he has voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and his family, not for a mere special or temporary purpose but with a present intention of making it his permanent home...”
The concept of domicile is not uniform throughout the world. To civil lawyers in Europe who do not apply common law, it means habitual residence. While at common law it is regarded as equivalent to a person’s permanent home.
Domicile is what is termed in private international law as a “connecting factor” which connects an individual with a system of law for the purposes of determining a range of matters, principally related to his status or property. For example, in the circumstances below, domicile is said to be a “connecting factor”
· Legal capacity to marry
· Personal capacity to make a will
· Formal validity of a will
· Jurisdiction of the court in proceedings for divorce
Nationality on the other hand is a relationship between an individual and a country (to which a person owes his allegiance to). Nationality normally confers some protection of the individual by the state and some obligations on the individual towards the state. Where the state and country are federated into separate legal systems the two (domicile and nationality) will be different. And where the country is federated into separate legal systems the two will be different. Domicile can be distinguished from nationality in that one can have a dual nationality but not more than one domicile at a time as it was held in the case of ODIASE V ODIASE[2].
Every person as well must have a domicile as was seen in the case of UDNY V UDNY[3]. Unlike nationality no person can be without a domicile even if stateless. Nationality represents a man’s political status, by virtue of which he owes allegiance to some particular country; domicile indicates his civil status and it provides the law by which his personal rights and obligations are determined. Nationality depends, apart from naturalization, on the place of birth or on parentage; domicile is constituted by residence in a particular country with the intention of residing there permanently. It follows that a man may be a national of one country but domiciled in another.
CONCLUSION
Domicile is the most significant connecting factor in conflict of laws. It has a dominating role in family and matrimonial property law and a role in other areas such as capacity of persons to make contracts. It plays a part also in the law of taxation.
· Domicile is ‘**an idea of law’
Domicile of origin cannot be lost as such. Everyone is born with a domicile of origin, which remains (if only in abeyance). Even when a domicile of choice is acquired, the domicile of origin will remain as a resource to fill up any gap when a domicile of choice is abandoned.
A domicile of choice can be abandoned by a person when he or she ceases to reside in a country and ceases to intend to reside there permanently or indefinitely. When a domicile of choice is abandoned either a new domicile of choice is acquired, or the domicile of origin revives by operation of law.
It should be noted that the most important factor in acquiring a domicile of choice is intention (animus). The act of moving may occur but most times it does not necessarily mean that the person intends to move.’
These are excerpts from https://legalrescue.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-law-of-domicile.html
Now we have the task of identifying what in our current systems of law would be responsible for creating or recording our political status and our civil status, the two universal and fundamental legal mechanisms of citizenship. It is quite easy to connect the birth certificate to our nationality, and thus it is the record used to determine the individual's political status. This is the information used on the individual’s passport, it would be why the passport includes place of birth styled as the State, U.S.A., it does not say place of birth, United States. What other fundamental document do all individuals have to file upon birth or before one can participate in greater CIVILization? The "Social Security" account number. It is my belief that Social Security or Social Insurance in other parts of the world is responsible for the Civil status of the individual. [I would like to quickly mention, that it seems logical to infer this is the same mechanism utilized throughout the world to enslave unsuspecting people without knowledge of the legal mechanisms at play. I have not studied the law of other countries, so this is purely speculation since I believe the form of government and laws in the United States of America are unlike any other countries.] It only seems fitting then that this agency of the United States Federal Government is called Social Security Administration (Social - Civil/society, Security - financial security instruments, Administration). Our application here in the United States is titled SS-5 application for social security account card, which creates an account number upon being submitted and processed. There are multiple questions on this form but none more important than Number 5, Citizenship. If we already have an established nationality determining our political status/allegiance with the Certificate of Live Birth and our government issued passports for travel, why are we being asked to voluntarily choose our citizenship on this application? One will notice when filling out a passport application, there is no question of the citizenship of the individual on that form. This is because nationality/political status is determined by law, it is not chosen. Deductive reasoning will lead to the inevitable conclusion, the Social Security Account is the registration of the individual’s legal domicile. You see, citizenship and domicile are in some instances synonymous terms. This is directly from Black's Law Dictionary under Domicile;
"Citizenship," "habitancy," and "residence" are severally words which in particular cases may mean precisely the same as "domicile," while in other uses may have different meanings.
For purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction, "citizenship" and "domicile" are synonymous.
[ Hendry v. Masonite Corp., C.A. Miss., 455 F.2d 955.]
There is also this case;
When a person establishes a foreign domicile, he loses state citizenship.95
Footnotes:95. Okl. -- Suglove v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, Oklahoma,
605 P.2d 1315 [14 C.J.S. 29, page 451]
Since legal domicile operates under private international law, we know that all nations are foreign to each other, the states of our Union are foreign to each other, as well as the nation called the United States which is composed of the District of Colombia and other federal territories, thus a foreign territory under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. We also know that domicile is 'an idea of law', a concept created by society to help properly administer laws amongst many "sovereign" nations that interact through travel and commerce. It’s important to remember that the domicile of origin is ONLY replaced when there is a domicile of choice acquired, this requires the intent of the individual. Prior to the events of the 1930's and the creation of Social Security account number assigned to all individuals, courts routinely dealt with determining the domicile of the parties to a particular dispute. They needed this information to establish jurisdiction and proper law form. Courts still routinely ask for the “residence” of the parties to this day, this is all about how our systems operate to establish jurisdiction. I have noticed a vast reduction in the question of domicile, otherwise referred to as citizenship in old court cases, of the parties after the 1930's. What could be the reason? Could it be that there was a new form which people were being asked to file which may include this very important information? Could this record be used to establish their civil status? Is it possible the civil status became an “official government record” just like the birth certificates later did? If so, what are our options on that application? There are essentially two choices, either U.S. citizen or a Legal Alien, there is no choice for state citizen on this form, what could this mean? A legal alien is either authorized to work in the United States or not, pending their immigration status, either way, they are a legal alien in relation to the jurisdiction of the United States since they are a foreign national. We know there are two distinct statuses of citizenship within the United States of America, the first being a citizen of a state of the Union and the second being a citizen of the United States due to the 14th amendment, so what is the appropriate choice for someone who wishes to operate through a state legal domicile and not a federal or D.C. legal domicile to establish their civil status which determines their personal law and rights? The correct choice would have to be a legal alien allowed to work. Choosing U.S. citizen as a domicile of choice has disastrous consequences to the legal rights of the individual, especially since the U.S. Congress put their U.S. citizens into bondage to underwrite/securitize the fiat financial security currency printed by the Federal Reserve which the United States “borrows” at interest. Some examples in relation to a loss of legal rights; why do we need a driver's license to use the public roads in a state in which we call home, legally known as our permanent residence/domicile? Why do we need a marriage license to marry? Why do we pay property tax and road tax and sales tax and income tax and inheritance tax, do you see a pattern? I believe these taxes are all considered excise taxes since they are the result of inter-state commerce. You are being taxed for the privilege of doing business and living in a state of the Union to which you do not legally belong to. You see, an individual can only have one domicile. If you choose a legal domicile in D.C. (U.S. resident citizen) and then you are physically outside the District of Columbia, for example, you decide you want to live and 'reside' in a state of the Union, you are involved in interstate commerce every single day you stay in the territory of a state that is not D.C. or federal territory. Maybe this will help some understand why U.S. citizens pay so many taxes, have no legal capacity or standing, and no State Constitution protections. This also explains how they are able to use a graduated income tax on U.S.(D.C.) resident citizens, the Federal Constitution does NOT apply. Without the ability to own private property (Senate Doc. 43) the individual has little capacity to do anything, this is the evil of socialism/collectivism, human bondage, and Usury. The individual is but a human resource to be consumed and directed according to the dictates of the arbitrary power of a select few who are in positions of power by using the force of the “State”. There is no equality or equity in a system of this kind. The wide-reaching effects of this simple check box on a single application are almost beyond comprehension. The best con jobs are always nothing more than sleight of hand, this is legal trickery 101.
When I first connected these dots, I was ecstatic at first and then heartbroken at the realization of the chaos that has been unleashed in our country due to people not knowing or understanding these fundamental pillars of our government and legal systems. I believed I had found a remedy according to law, within our current systems of law. I was eager to test my new found understanding, all I had to do was update my "Social Security record" right? Change my civil status to a legal alien and reclaim my rightful civil status (legal domicile) within the state I currently live which is outside the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the foreign socialist democracy of the United States Nation. If only the world were a simpler place, where logic and reason were still fundamental pillars of our culture. The short version of my story; upon resubmitting a new SS-5 to my local social security branch with legal alien allowed to work checked and supporting documents provided, they refused to process my application. They claimed I could not select that status unless I had immigration paperwork. They instructed me to contact Citizenship and Immigration department or Homeland Security. Say what? What does immigration have to do with my legal status? My domicile is determined by my intent, right? The instructions are clear, provide evidence of who you are, your name, date of birth, place of birth, nationality.... surely a passport which I used to establish these necessary elements fulfills all these requirements? It is listed as a valid document of evidence right in their instructions. To this day I have been unable to correct my record held with the Social Security Administration. After being denied the ability to alter or correct my record according to the written instructions provided by Social Security themselves, I filed a complaint with the Inspector General of Social Security. I also filed a complaint with the Attorney General of my state. This accomplished nothing, so I felt I had no choice other than filing a complaint in District Court. So, that's what I did. On May 1, 2019, I submitted my complaint under the Declaratory Judgement Act and Judicial Review Act with the supporting evidence I've shared here plus much more. I was simply asking the court to review the actions of Social Security, I wanted to know how they were able to refuse to process my application, where was the source of their authority to force me to be a U.S. citizen in my private civil capacity. Social Security attorneys filed for dismissal stating that I did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted as well as failure to exhaust my administrative remedy. I naturally objected, how is it possible the attorneys for social security are this ignorant and/or incompetent? How could they possibly ask for dismissal on a case built upon established legal precedent and multiple case citations in support of my position? So, I filed my objection and added more evidence to help support what I was still learning as I went. Next came the Report and Recommendation from the magistrate judge assigned to my case. Surprise, the magistrate judge was recommending judgement in favor of defendant for dismissal. She actually compared my case, which I built on top of standing case law, our fundamental constitutional law, and international law, as a "sovereign citizen" argument as well as claiming my position was frivolous. She stated point blank, since I was born in Michigan, I am a U.S. citizen. I couldn't believe what I was reading. This is a clear violation of our fundamental law. She also claimed I was wasting the Courts time and resources. I just paid $400 to submit my case to the court, and now this magistrate is claiming I'm wasting their time? What was the purpose of paying the Court $400? Are all these people in positions of public office completely ignorant to our fundamental law, completely ignorant of the separation of Public International Law and Private International Law? Or are they just incompetent? Worse yet, are they now intentionally denying people their right of choosing their legal domicile which would alter their legal civil status and tax status? How could they not know that every individual has two distinct legal states and in a federated country, such as ours, the individual’s nationality/political status will be different than their legal domicile/civil status? Not to mention, the opinion of the magistrate essentially denies that Michigan even has a political body or a territorial jurisdiction! How is there a Constitution of Michigan, for the people of Michigan, but there is no political body and hence no nation?? This was a very somber moment for myself. It was and is quite enraging and continues to cause me some serious anguish to this day. All magistrate R&R's relating to dismissal must be reviewed by a Judge, so I was still holding a sliver of hope. Upon the Judge reviewing the recommendation of the Magistrate, the court agreed with the magistrate and dismissed my case. I have recently come across this statement, “It was the strongly held belief of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger that seventy-five to ninety percent of all trial lawyers are either incompetent, dishonest, or both.”
See 102 REPORTS OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, 205-206 (1978)
It would appear this level of corruption and incompetence is no longer limited to just trial lawyers.
This is my story to date. I hope someday to be in a position to write a happy ending to this journey, but for now I continue to study and research as much as possible to find another angle, to uncover another path to redemption. How do we correct this devasting errors and ignorance within our legal institutions? How do we correct something that no one understands? Can law enforcement enforce a law they don’t comprehend? I will continue to take time to interact on social media groups, with others who are yet to understand the value of what I'm trying to explain. I also routinely reach out to "liberty" and "law" groups with my research hoping to find someone that will take the time to investigate what I have put together. Who knows, maybe I am completely off base. Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about, I have doubted myself many times along this journey. There is much more to learn, much I do not know.
I would like to share one more statement as another piece of evidence though. I think it is very telling of what we are up against. It is attributed to Edward Mandell House. He was given the title of "Colonel" even though he had never served in any military. He was a very influential person in the early 20th century. He was 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; 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, it was classified as a futuristic political novel, 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.”
This is an opinion piece based upon years of persistent research as my time has allowed. If you are aware of any errors I would be grateful for considerate corrections with supporting evidence/documentation. It is not my intent to mislead or spread incorrect information, the integrity of this information is of the utmost priority. If you are aware of information/evidence which supports these claims, I would likewise be appreciative of those willing to share.
Written by Patrick Michael