Proof of Facts: “Citizenship” means PUBLIC OFFICER of a STATE or NATION, according to the etymology of the word
This interchange is with Bing ChatGPT.
QUESTION 1:
What is the origin of the “ship” in the word “citizenSHIP”?
ANSWER 1:
The word “citizenship” is derived from the word “citizen” and the suffix “-ship” 1. The suffix “-ship” is a word-forming element that means “quality, condition; act, power, skill; office, position; relation between” 1. It is derived from the Old English “-sciepe” which means “state, condition of being” 1.
The word “citizen” is derived from the Anglo-French word “citesein” which means “city-dweller, town-dweller, citizen” 1. It is derived from the Old French word “citeien” which means “inhabitant of a city or town” 1. The word “citeien” is derived from the Latin word “civis” which means “citizen” 1.
Therefore, the suffix “-ship” in the word “citizenship” refers to the “quality, condition, or state of being a citizen” 1.
I hope this helps!
Learn more
3etymonline.com4britannica.com
QUESTION 2:
If the word “ship” is interpreted as “office”, what specific entity would that office be within?
ANSWER 2:
If the word “ship” in “citizenship” is interpreted as “office”, then the specific entity that office would be within is the state or nation 1. The suffix “-ship” is a word-forming element that means “quality, condition; act, power, skill; office, position; relation between” 1. It is derived from the Old English “-sciepe” which means “state, condition of being” 1. Therefore, “citizenship” refers to the “quality, condition, or state of being a citizen” 1, and if “ship” is interpreted as “office”, then it would refer to the “office of being a citizen of a state or nation” 1.
I hope this helps!
Learn more
FURTHER PROOF:
In his Farewell Speech, President Obama identified “citizens” as public officers! See for yourself:
President Obama Admits in His Farewell Address that “citizen” is a public office, Exhibit #01.018
https://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX01.018-39-45-20170110-Obama%20Farewell%20Speech.mp4
In addition:
“All subjects over which the sovereign power of a State extends are objects of taxation, but those over which it does not extend are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.
The sovereignty of a State extends to everything which exists by its own authority or is introduced by its permission,…”
[McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 @ 430 (1819); The only thing that requires permission from the government is the use of its own PUBLIC property, which includes its OFFICES. Rights are property.]
“Citizenship and domicile are substantially synonymous. Residency and inhabitance are too often confused with the terms and have not the same significance. Citizenship implies more than residence. It carries with it the idea of identification with the state [as a PUBLIC officer] and a participation in its functions. As a citizen, one sustains social, political, and moral obligation to the state and possesses social and political rights under the Constitution and laws thereof. Harding v. Standard Oil Co. et al. (C.C.) 182 F. 421; Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 S.Ct. 763, 32 L.Ed. 766; Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 476, 15 L.Ed. 691.”
[Baker v. Keck, 13 F.Supp. 486 (1936)]
____________________________________________________________________________________________
“Citizenship implies membership in a political society, the relation of allegiance and protection, identification with the state[as a PUBLIC officer], and a participation in its functions.”
[Panill v. Roanoke Times Co, 252 F. 910 (1918)]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
“Citizen defined
Citizenship implies membership in a political society, the relation of allegiance and protection, identification with the state, and a participation in its functions[as a PUBLIC officer], and while a temporary absence may suspend the relation between a state and its citizen, his identification with the state remains where he intends to return. Pannill v. Roanoke Times Co., W.D.Va.1918, 252 F. 910. Aliens, Immigration, And Citizenship 678″[8 U.S.C.A. 1401, p. 18; SOURCE: https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/USCitizen-8USCA1401-20090918.pdf]
Why are you a “taxpayer”? Because income tax liability is a POLITICAL matter (Form #05.004) that can pertain ONLY to public officers WITHIN the POLITICAL branches of the government, consisting of the EXECUTIVE and the LEGISLATIVE:
“This right to protect persons having a domicile, though not native-born or naturalized citizens, rests on the firm foundation of justice, and the claim to be protected is earned by considerations which the protecting power is not at liberty to disregard. Such domiciled citizen pays the same price for his protection as native-born or naturalized citizens pay for theirs. He is under the bonds of allegiance to the country of his residence, and, if he breaks them, incurs the same penalties. He owes the same obedience to the civil laws. His property is, in the same way and to the same extent as theirs, liable to contribute to the support of the Government. In nearly all respects, his and their condition as to the duties and burdens of Government are undistinguishable.”
[Fong Yu Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)]_____________________________________________________________________________________________
“Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes. Since the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides, the fact of residence creates universally reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter. Of course, the situs of property may tax it regardless of the citizenship, domicile, or residence of the owner, the most obvious illustration being a tax on realty laid by the state in which the realty is located.”
[Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)]
In the Fong Yu Ting case above, the Supreme Court is talking above about an ALIEN, and they are CALLING him a “citizen”! The origin of his “citizen” status is the “IMPLIED LICENSE” he has as an alien. Effectively what Fong Yu Ting admits is that “residence”=FORCED domicile of aliens. SCOTUS calls this an “implied license, which in effect makes domicile into a protection franchise. But domicile of NATIONALS born or naturalized in the country, however, CANNOT be forced like it can with aliens.
The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption ‘from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found’ were stated as follows: ‘When private individuals of one nation [states of the Unions are “nations” under the law of nations] spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently, there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter, can never be construed to grant such exemption.’ 7 Cranch, 144.
In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction, rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war; and that the implied license, under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants, for purposes of business or pleasure, can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See, also, Carlisle v. U. S. (1872) 16 Wall. 147, 155 ; Radich v. Hutchins (1877) 95 U. S. 210 ; Wildenhus’ Case (1887) 120 U. S. 1, 7 Sup. Ct. 385 ; Chae Chan Ping v. U. S. (1889) 130 U. S. 581, 603, 604, 9 Sup. Ct. 623.
[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]
And the Supreme Court is saying that ALL are protected, whether national or alien, by the CIVIL statutory law and pay for that protection through income taxes.
From the above, we can see that:
- Income taxation is a strictly “political matter” (Form #05.004). By that, they mean a matter INTERNAL to the government, or more specifically to the POLITICAL branches of the government, consisting of the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE departments.
- To become a MEMBER the government, you must VOLUTARILY select a domicile.
- Once a domicile is selected, you are “identified with the state” as a public officer.
So “domicile” for a NATIONAL is voluntary, while it is INVOLUNTARY and IMPLIED for an ALIEN. How, then, do they make this process of volunteering INVISIBLE so you don’t know you are volunteering? It’s done with the “includes” scam:
(1)(f) “Include,” “includes,” or “including” means that the items listed are not an exclusive list, unless the word “only” or similar language is used to expressly indicate that the list is an exclusive list.
The definition of “individual” in the Utah code then invokes “includes”:
Utah Code
59-10-103(k) “Individual” means a natural person and includes aliens and minors.
The Rules of Statutory Construction and the Constitution require that you must receive “reasonable notice” if you are INCLUDED in a definition. See:
Requirement for Reasonable Notice, Form #05.022
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableNotice.pdf
Therefore, the definition of “individual” SOMEWHERE in the tax statutes must EXPRESSLY include a “national” or they are PURPOSEFULLY excluded. Invoking “includes” implies that the definition in Utah Code 59-10-103 need NOT expressly INCLUDE nationals, but SOMEWHERE in the title it must EXPRESSLY be included or is PURPOSEFULLY excluded:
“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General’s restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”
[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]
“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392, and n. 10 (1979). Congress’ use of the term “propaganda” in this statute, as indeed in other legislation, has no pejorative connotation.{19} As judges, it is our duty to [481 U.S. 485] construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.“
[Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987)]
The burden of proof of all those who want to insist that NATIONALS born or naturalized in the COUNTRY “United States” are statutory “individuals” therefore falls upon the government to provide a statute SOMEWHERE in the Utah Tax Code ONLY that EXPRESSLY includes anyone other than minors and aliens. If they can’t, then your CONSENT in some form is required to add yourself to the definition.
HOWEVER, even with consent, a private party has no authority to legislate. Adding to a statutory definition by your consent therefore cannot expand statutory definitions, because the power to legislate is reserved EXCLUSIVELY to the LEGISLATIVE branch and CANNOT be delegated. So NOT EVEN CONSENT can add “nationals” to the definition of “individual” above.
This SCAM with the word “includes” and “including” is designed to HIDE the process of CONSENTING to taxation so you think it is mandatory. For more on this subject, see:
Hot Issues: Invisible Consent, SEDM
https://sedm.org/invisible-consent/
DEBATE:
STATEMENT: They do give themselves fireproofing with the qualifying language at the beginning of Utah code 68-3-12.
(1)(a) In the construction of a statute in the Utah Code, the general rules listed in this Subsection (1) shall be observed, unless the construction would be:
(i) inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature; or
(ii) repugnant to the context of the statute.
REBUTTAL: That’s sophistry designed to HIDE the requirement for reasonable notice and consent. All JUST powers of government derive from CONSENT according to the Declaration of Independence.
STATEMENT: Yes but the consent of the majority seems to be all that’s needed. “The People” in their collective capacity.
Domicile requires intent which equals consent on the individual level yes.
REBUTTAL:
The consent of the majority is only relevant if you consent to be a MEMBER of the collective with a domicile. Nonmembers are not subject to the CIVIL STATUTORY rules of the majority. Might does not make right. A government of “delegated powers” can have not more powers in its COLLECTIVE capacity than a single human being. If they can, government becomes a pagan deity in violation of the First Amendment.
CIVIL STATUTORY law is a PROTECTION franchise.
“When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights or privileges which, as an individual not affected by his relations to others, he might retain. “A body politic,” as aptly defined in the preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts, “is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.” This does not confer power upon the whole people to control rights which are purely and exclusively private, Thorpe v. R. & B. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 143; but it does authorize the establishment of laws requiring each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another. This is the very essence of government, and 125*125 has found expression in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non lædas. From this source come the police powers, which, as was said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in the License Cases, 5 How. 583, “are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty, . . . that is to say, . . . the power to govern men and things.””
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6419197193322400931]
They can make all the rules for MEMBERS they want WITHOUT the consent of INDIVIDUAL members. But those who NEVER JOINED and remain PRIVATE, MUST be “left alone”, which is the very definition of “justice” itself. See:
- Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “Justice”
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/justice.htm - What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf - Membership in a Specific Class or Status or Group as a Cause for Loss of Rights, SEDM
https://sedm.org/membership-in-a-specific-class-status-or-group-as-a-cause-for-loss-of-rights/
STATEMENT: Yes but what makes a person join? Obtaining a driver license? Seems that there must be minimum contacts and not mere presence.
REBUTTAL: ChatGPT discussions earlier revealed it is registering to vote that constitutes joining. Once you control who are the members, you have to live by the rules because you are the one MAKING the rules and even subsidizing their enforcement with taxes. Here is an example for the state of Utah:
Utah Code
(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that an individual is considered to have domicile in this state if:
(a) the individual or the individual’s spouse claims a residential exemption in accordance with Chapter 2, Property Tax Act, for that individual’s or individual’s spouse’s primary residence;
(b) the individual or the individual’s spouse:
(i) votes in this state in a regular general election, municipal general election, primary election, or special election during the taxable year; and
(ii) has not registered to vote in another state in that taxable year; or
STATEMENT: That’s interesting. And comports with some of the changes Utah legislators are making to domicile statutes this year.
The Utah Legislature has proposed to make the above presumption IRREBUTTABLE:
https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/sbillint/SB0033.pdf
REBUTTAL: IRREBUTTABLE presumptions, also called “conclusive presumptions” are UNCONSTITUTIONAL as held by the U.S. Supreme Court:
The government makes the point that the conclusive presumption created by the statute is a rule of substantive law, and, regarded as such, should be upheld; and decisions tending to support that view are cited. The [285 U.S. 312, 329] earlier revenue acts created a prima facie presumption, which was made irrebuttable by the later act of 1926. A rebuttable presumption clearly is a rule of evidence which has the effect of shifting the burden of proof, Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35, 43 , 31 S. Ct. 136, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 226, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 463; and it is hard to seen how a statutory rebuttable presumptions is turned from a rule of evidence into a rule of substantive law as the result of a later statute making it conclusive. In both cases it is a substitute for proof; in the one open to challenge and disproof, and in the other conclusive. However, whether the latter presumption be treated as a rule of evidence or of substantive law, it constitutes an attempt, by legislative fiat, to enact into existence a fact which here does not, and cannot be made to, exist in actuality, and the result is the same, unless we are ready to overrule the Schlesinger Case, as we are not; for that case dealt with a conclusive presumption, and the court held it invalid without regard to the question of its technical characterization. This court has held more than once that a statute creating a presumption which operates to deny a fair opportunity to rebut it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 , 238, et seq., 31 S. Ct. 145; Manley v. Georgia, 279 U.S. 1 , 5-6, 49 S. Ct. 215.
‘It is apparent,’ this court said in the Bailey Case ( 219 U.S. 239 , 31 S. Ct. 145, 151) ‘that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.’
If a legislative body is without power to enact as a rule of evidence a statute denying a litigant the right to prove the facts of his case, certainly the power cannot be made to emerge by putting the enactment in the guise of a rule of substantive law.
[285 U.S. 312, 330] Second. The provision in question cannot be sustained as imposing a gift tax, (1) because the intent of Congress to enact the provision as an incident of the death tax and not as a gift tax is unmistakable; and (2) because, if construed as imposing a gift tax, it is in that aspect still so arbitrary and capricious as to cause it to fall within the ban of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
[Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932)]
You can’t register to vote without a domicile. So the income tax functions for all intents and purposes as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL “poll tax”.
https://sedm.org/proof-that-the-income-tax-is-a-poll-tax/
What makes it constitutional is that domicile is voluntary. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
If you want to PLAY, you have to pay.
STATEMENT: If you don’t want a say, you don’t have to play, and you don’t have to pay.
REBUTTAL: Domicile then becomes a method of collecting “membership dues”. If you don’t like the membership fees or don’t want to be a member, abandon domicile.
CONCLUSION:
DOMICILE is the origin of CIVIL STATUTORY jurisdiction, not common law jurisdiction. By voluntarily CHOOSING a civil domicile, you unavoidably become an OFFICER of the state and IDENTIFIED with the state/government. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
The OPPOSITE of someone who wants to be an officer of the state or nation is someone who wants to be private and to simply be left alone as the legal definition of “justice” prescribes. This person is called an “idiot”. For proof, see:
- Are You an “idiot”?, SEDM
- What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050
- Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “justice”
By the POOR LAWS, a man may live in a particular place all his life except one day, and yet not acquire a legal “residence”:
Penman v. Wayne, U.S. 241 (1788)
If you want to know what it means to be TRULY “private” and “left alone” as what they call “an idiot”, see:
Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
APPLICATION OF THIS ARTICLE TO OTHER CONTEXTS:
The content of this article is also useful in other areas, such as right to travel. State vehicle codes say that if you are in “this State” for more than X days, you have to get a license.
- “this State” means the GOVERNMENT CORPORATION, not the physical state.
- Domicile is how you JOIN the government.
- If you don’t want a domicile and aren’t an alien, the requirement to get a license is irrelevant and can be disregarded.
Based on this article, the above are now established as “irrebuttable presumptions”!
[…] Proof of Facts: “Citizenship” means PUBLIC OFFICER of a STATE or NATION, according to the etymology of the word, SEDMhttps://sedm.org/proof-of-facts-citizenship-means-public-officer-of-a-state-or-nation-according-to-t… […]