10 November 2011, 6:31 pm
PREFACE: I've posted this before several times. This one is for John S "The short answer? No, you are not. In fact, no one is. Allow me to explain. Citizenship is defined, by The United States Supreme Court, as; "Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE on the part of the member and a DUTY OF PROTECTION on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other."- Luria v. U.S, 231 U.S. 9, 22 [EMPHASIS MINE] Notice duty of allegiance in exchange for a duty of protection[1]. We find that without either element, their is no legal relationship, i.e. citizenship. It just so happens the US Supreme Court as well as every single State Supreme Court, have all unanimously ruled that government has no duty to protect. Hundreds, literally hundreds, of cases. No duty to protect= no duty of allegiance owed=no citizens. This raises issue with the matter of the legitimacy of the "State", or rather existence. A "State" is not something geographical, but rather political. Factually, a "State" is a political body, or "Body Politic", consisting of citizens who get together to do, say, XYZ. However, no citizens=no body politic. No body politic=no state. Suffice to say, no state=no "United States", no "Country" or "Nation", rather a HALLUCI-Nation. What you have is roughly 300 million, who are just people. Not "Citizens" living in "States", or other erroneous fictions, just real people in a real world. That isn't to say if you live, for example, in Oregon (the physical/geographical/tangible land mass), that you're living in a delusional figment. There is a factual difference between Oregon and the State of Oregon(the "body politic"). [1] For a few references (and I mean a few, there are hundreds)... 1. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States (1997), pp. 9, 22, 19. 2. Ibid., pp. 14, 25. 3. Gordon Witkin, Monika Guttman, and Tracy Lenzy, “This is 911 . . . Please Hold,” U.S. News & World Report, June 17, 1996, p. 30. 4. Ibid., quoting Northeastern University Professor George Kelling and lawyer Catherine Coles. 5. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981), quoting the trial court decision. 6. California Government Code, § 845. 7. Souza v. City of Antioch, 62 California Reporter, 2d 909, 916 (Cal. App. 1997). 8. Mass." Now, as I prefaced, I've posted this before, more than once. In one post, user John S informed me that I was violating the guidelines and that I should stop because I had already been given the "right" answer. But that's not accurate, as I was never given the correct answer. Just an answer. To my shame I resorted to childish tactics and insulted John. It was uncalled for, unprovoked, and unacceptable. I apologize John S. Upon posting it again, I ended with asking John S to provide a factual refutation. He said because I acted like a jerk the last time he had no interest in engaging me in a debate. Now, I admit I did act like a jerk, but this time I won’t. I’m not sure if he was truly offended or if he was simply using a typical lawyer trick. The trick being, that when asked a question instead of answering the person, you tell them you feel that any answer you give them simply would not be adequate or satisfying, so you would rather not answer at all. It’s a great way of avoiding the question, especially if the person asked is slick and/or the person asking is to naïve or lazy to call them on it and instead allow them to weasel their way out of it. John S, you’re free to weasel if you wish, but it certainly won’t help your credibility any. So let me ask again. John S, will you-if you can-provide a factual refutation to my post? Please and thanks. [Part 1] “Your premise is wrong. The statement ‘We find that without either element, their is no legal relationship, i.e. citizenship’ does not appear in Luria.” I never claimed it did. You’re trying to straw man my argument. "There is thus no support for your premise that you cannot be a citizen of a county unless the government of that country has a duty to protect you.” “"Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE on the part of the member and a DUTY OF PROTECTION on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other."- Luria v. U.S, 231 U.S. 9, 22 [EMPHASIS MINE] Citizenship is very clearly defined. Can you a cite a case in which that definition has been changed? [Part 2] “In fact, as was correctly answered before, the definition of a citizen of the United States is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.” Ok, if your argument rests on the validity of the United States Constitution, then please answer these questions: 1)Factually, what is the Constitution? 2)Is the Constitution a contract? 3)How many factual elements are in a contract? 4)Are these elements present within the Constitution? What empirical evidence do you rely on to factually connect the US Constitution to anyone? Is citizenship a mutual/consensual agreement, or is a relationship based on compulsion? Since you’re an attorney in California, and I imagine your represent the “State of California”, factually what is the State of California? [Part 3] If I were the defendant and you the plaintiff, “representing” the “State of California”, if I asked you “Is there evidence of a complaining party”, would you answer Yes or No? and would if Yes, what evidence would you produce? And when you claim to “represent” the “State of California” (if you make such claims), are you referring to the body politic? [Reply 1/3] “ADD: Luria does not, and did not purport to, define citizenship.” “"CITIZENSHIP IS membership in a political society, and implies a DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE on the part of the member and a DUTY OF PROTECTION on the part of the society.” -Luria v. U.S, 231 U.S. 9, 22 [EMPHASIS MINE] Just for clarification, you are maintaining that this in no way is a definition of what citizenship is or entails? This is just an opinion from a group of robed lawyers that has no more merit than my lay opinion? “Your post at least implied that SOME court…” The United States Supreme Court, John. “…had made the statement …” Statement or ruling? Was it just in jest? [Reply 2/3] “Beyond that, the concept of citizenship is based upon what the people of a country accept as citizenship…” Then what do “the people” accept? Is this unilateral or individually? Does it require consent or can it be based on compulsion? Is this ever-changing or is it concrete? Can I reference something to fact check and verify, or is it similar to was what Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., said about words;"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used."?... Read More »
Share on del.icio.us
Share on digg
Share on Technorati
Share on reddit
Share on Yahoo!
Share on Facebook