TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Introduction and Definitions
- Rights are property
- Anything that CONVEYS rights is property
- Contracts convey rights and are therefore property
- All franchises are contracts, and therefore property
- Civil statuses (Form #13.008) convey and enforce PUBLIC rights and are therefore PUBLIC property
- The Constitution conveys mainly PRIVATE rights, which are PRIVATE property in the case of the Bill of Rights
- Those who OFFER property to you are a Merchant (Seller) under UCC. §2-104(1)
- The person RECEIVING the property is the Buyer under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a)
- The MERCHANT always prescribes ALL the terms of the offer and can withhold the property if those terms are not met. The withholding of the property is an exercise of the “right to exclude” aspect of ownership
- You should always strive to be the Merchant in every business transaction to give yourself the upper hand
- You should NEVER allow the GOVERNMENT to act as a Merchant in relation to you
- The CREATOR of a civil statutory privilege/right/franchise is ALWAYS the owner and the Merchant granting or selling PUBLIC property
- A statutory civil right (which is PUBLIC PROPERTY) exercised against a fiction of law (straw man, Form #05.042) such as a “person” is a right exercised against the GRANTOR/CREATOR of the OFFICE, and not the human(s) FILLING the office
- If you use a civil statutory fictional office for private gain, the creator of the office is the owner of all income and property attached to the office through the use of the franchise mark, the Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number
- How to DESTROY all private property and private rights and make us all public servants whether we want to be or not
The subject of rights as property is a very important one. It is one upon which most of the injustice in government is built so it is worth spending lots of time to learn more about. This article summarizes all the authorities we can find relating to rights as property.
Why is the concept of rights as property the origin of evil relating to freedom and sovereignty? The answer is found in the following authorities, indicating that the main source of government control over your life is the process of granting or loaning you government property with legal strings attached:
“The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower [of money or property] is servant to the lender.”
[Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]
“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]
Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]
“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES]. He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.
“Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.
“Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand, a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system]. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.
[Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]
The evil resulting from the above authorities is exhaustively described in:
This subject, in turn, is built on the laws of property. We summarize these laws and repeat the major headings below on the following page:
For a PDF printable version of this article, please see:
If you would like to read a detailed debate of the content of this page between SEDM Admin and one of our most experienced Members, visit the following page:
Debate of “Authorities on Rights as Property” Page, SEDM
- These definitions are necessary because politicians often conflate “rights” and “privileges” so as to entice people to adopt socialist progressive wealth redistribution. It is therefore especially important to be clear in your language when trying to distinguish rights (PRIVATE rights) from privileges (PUBLIC rights) so that the ignorant masses are not further enticed into socialism. See:
Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
- For the purposes of this website:
2.1 “rights” are private and some but not all are found in the Constitution.
2.2 In relation to government, “privileges” are always PUBLIC and are found only in civil statutes. By “civil statutes”, we mean anything OTHER than what is in the criminal code. A privilege is simply a distribution of PUBLIC property with CIVIL legal strings attached. Also called “public rights”, “benefits”, “entitlements”, etc.
- The CREATOR of a right or privilege is always the GRANTOR and the OWNER of the right or privilege.
3.1. God (the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence) is the Creator of PRIVATE rights and therefore PRIVATE property. He is therefore the OWNER of these rights and the party to whom all those exercising such rights owe obedience and allegiance.
3.2. The Legislature is the Creator of PUBLIC statutory privileges. The act of creation happens in the DEFINITIONS section of statutes and the PRIVILEGES are then attached and assigned to the fictions of law (public offices) thus created. There cannot be a public right or privilege WITHOUT an office to assign or attach it to.
- The Bill of Rights (the first eight amendments to the Constitution) RECOGNIZES but does not CREATE Private rights. THE CREATOR creates Private rights. He is the ONLY one who CAN. As the CREATOR, He is also the ABSOLUTE OWNER of Private rights. This is clarified below:
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,- ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”]; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.”
[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]
- Alienation of rights:
5.1 In relation to government, “rights” (private rights) are unalienable, which means the can’t be given away, sold, or transferred, even with consent. God is the owner of these rights, not the government, so government can’t SELL these rights or make them into a privilege. See:
Enumeration of Inalienable Rights, Form #10.002
5.2 In a private context between to private humans, private rights are transferable through consent or contract, and therefore ARE alienable.
- Rights and privileges ALWAYS must have a grantor. Those granting rights (private rights) or privileges (public rights) cannot grant these rights or privileges against anyone OTHER than themselves.
6.1. This is because if they granted rights against anyone ELSE, they would be stealing property or services (slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment) from the third party they granted rights against.
6.2. There is therefore an IMPLIED conclusive presumption that if a grantor grants rights against a third party, that third party must be acting as an AGENT or officer of the grantor when properly executing or enforcing those rights. For instance, if the government grants a remedy or obligation by statute against a “driver” in the vehicle code, all “drivers” must be agents and officers of the government grantor, and not the human being VOLUNTARILY filling the said office of “driver”.
6.3. Because rights or privileges granted against apparent third-parties are always ultimately against AGENTS and OFFICERS of the grantor, then ultimately, the LIABLE party for those EXERCISING such rights or privileges is the grantor, and NOT the third party. VERY IMPORTANT!
6.4. The fictional public OFFICES established to IMPLEMENT the grant of privileges are, by default, PROPERTY of the grantor and the RESPONSIBILITY and liability of the grantor. Ownership and responsibility ALWAYS go together. For instance, if such an officer in the official and lawful exercise of their delegated duties injures someone, the actions of the OFFICER are the exclusive liability of government grantor. If they were acting OUTSIDE their delegated authority, they personally become liable for the damages done.
6.5. Those who apply for the position and office of “driver” with the Department of Transportation are an example of people filling a government-granted office created by statute, for instance. The application creates a CONSENSUAL connection between an otherwise PRIVATE human and the PUBLIC office he or she fills. Upon being accepted, they are OFFICERS of the government grantor responsible for the RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS attached to the “driver” office. This is because the legal definition of a “public officer” is someone in charge of the PROPERTY of the public, which property is, as a minimum, the privileges and obligations attached to the office.
6.6 The only way for the government to avoid liability for the damages of the “driver” against third party is to:
6.6.1 Claim that the “driver” was not legislatively authorized to injure others and thus, was acting OUTSIDE their delegated authority and was therefore PERSONALLY liable for those damages. This also makes sense logically, because no contract that results in criminal consequences or damaging behavior is enforceable in court anyway, and the driver licensing is, for all intents and purposes, a franchise contract between the government (public) grantor and an otherwise PRIVATE human. . .OR
6.6.2 Expressly state in the granting legislation that the officer instead of the office is the liable party for all damages they inflict on third parties who are not mentioned in the grant.
Judges won’t tell you that’s how the vehicle code works, but that is the only way it CAN logically work without bankrupting the government in connection with traffic accidents executed by public officers called “drivers”.
6.7 More on the subject of the law of agency at:
A Treatise on the Law of Agency in Contract and Tort, George L Reinhard
- STATUTORY “Citizen” is a “civil status” and is always a privilege and always voluntary.
7.1 You don’t HAVE to be a “citizen”. That would be a violation of due process and a taking of property without due process. The property taken in violation of due process from those involuntarily filling the office of citizen would be the obligations attached to the office by civil statutes.
7.2 If you choose NOT to be a “citizen”, you default to being a “national” by virtue of birth or naturalization. A person who does this is called a “nonresident” (Form #05.020) or “an idiot” in classical terminology.
7.3 A STATUTORY “citizen” and a CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen” are NOT the same thing and are often mutually exclusive. You can be one without being the OTHER, especially as someone born in a constitutional state. See:
Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011
7.4. The reason that that STATUTORY “citizen” and a CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen” are not the same is that they have a different creator and therefore owner. STATUTORY “citizen” is a creation of the legislature and a government granted privilege, whereas CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen” is a creation of “the State” rather than the government. See the following for details on the differences between these two:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006
7.5. The government and “the State” are two completely different legal entities. The government is called the “body corporate” and “the State” is called the “body politic”. The government is a creation and property and franchise of “the State” that works for “the State”. See Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1884) for a description of the differences between the government and “the State” by the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The Bill of Rights pertains to CONSTITUTIONAL PERSONS, not only or just to “citizens” as consenting members of the political community. Anyone who tries to limit RIGHTS in their application to only CIVIL STATUTORY CLUB MEMBERS called “citizens” is:
8.1 Trying to turn “justice” into a “privilege“. Justice can NEVER be a privilege and when it is, it becomes INJUSTICE. See:
What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050, Section 5.3
8.2 Attempting to turn PRIVATE property into PUBLIC property usually without your consent.
8.3 Trying to convert the society to SOCIALISM.
- All rights (private rights) implicate corresponding obligations on the part of someone else. The “property” represented by these rights HAS to come from SOMEWHERE and SOMEONE. They don’t grow on trees or just magically APPEAR out of thin air, contrary to what many socialists believe. Property is like math equations: They have to BALANCE! In fact, the very purpose that the Social Security Number was invented for is to ENSURE that the equation always balances and that you never draw out of the welfare state system MORE than you actually put in!
9.1 If the party with the obligation is the government, it’s a PRIVATE right.
9.2 If the BOTH parties involved are private, then it is purely private contracting. The contract itself is property, and the consideration it conveys is also property.
9.3 If the grantor of the right (the Merchant) is private and the obligor (the Buyer) is the government entering the commercial marketplace competitively for goods, then the government is acting in a PRIVATE capacity under the Clearfield Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court.
- All privileges (public rights) are granted by government using statutes (legislation) instead of the Constitution. In this capacity, the government is acting as a Merchant and you as the Buyer under the U.C.C. They implicate corresponding obligations on your part.
10.1 If the obligation imposed is on a non-consenting private party (the Buyer, and also a member of the general public), the property which constitutes the obligation is STOLEN from the VICTIM with the involuntary obligation. In that sense, the government granted right represents a violation of due process against someone else under the Fifth Amendment. This very situation is the very HEART of just about EVERYTHING the Democrat party does to entice and bribe voters with OTHER peoples money that is stole to buy votes!
10.2 If the privilege is not available to ALL people, but only applies to a class of people such as “citizens”, “benefit recipients”, or “taxpayers”, then it’s class legislation and a voluntary franchise. The Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) case of the U.S. Supreme Court which declared income tax unconstitutional held that government may not engage in such DISCRIMINATORY activities towards anyone and denounced it as “class legislation”. That’s because when they do this, the government is really just selling property at that point in the capacity of a private business. Or in other words, they are essentially acting as a de facto government (Form #05.043). Governments are NOT supposed to enter the commercial marketplace and compete with private companies, or grant themselves a monopoly (such as money system or Social Security) because it impairs choice and competition and violates the Sherman Antitrust Act.
10.3 The Public Rights Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court regulates the adjudication of disputes relating to privileges (public rights). See: Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272 (1856), Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438, 451 (1929), Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716 (1929).
10.4 All STATUTORY obligations are CIVIL in nature and not CRIMINAL. There are TWO types of law in federal court: Civil and Criminal, corresponding with the Federal Rules of CIVIL Procedure and the Federal Rules of CRIMINAL Procedure respectively. Even contract issues are litigated as CIVIL matters in Federal Court. See:
Lawfully Avoiding Government Obligations, Form #12.040
- Temporary and revocable grants or loans of public property from the government are called “bailments”. All such grants are privileges subject to civil statutory regulation under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. The ability to tax and regulate, in fact, derives almost exclusively from these bailments. In that sense, taxation is simply government charging “rent” on the use or “benefit” of its property. They are in the property rental business, just like car rental businesses. Examples of such bailments include:
11.1. Any kind of “status” you claim to which legal rights attach under a franchise. Remember: All “rights” are property”! This includes:
11.1. “taxpayer” (I.R.C. “trade or business” franchise).
11.1.2. “citizen” or “resident” (civil law protection franchise”).
11.1.3. “driver” (vehicle code of your state).
11.1.4. “spouse” (family code of your state, which is a voluntary franchise).
11.2. A Social Security Card. 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) says the card and the number belong to the U.S. government.
11.3. A “Taxpayer Identification Number” (TIN) issued under the authority of 26 U.S.C. §6109. All “taxpayers” are public officers in the U.S. government. Per 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1, use of the number provides prima facie evidence that the user is engaged in official government business called a “trade or business”, which is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office” (in the U.S. and not state government).
11.4. Any kind of license. Most licenses say on the back or in the statutes regulating them that they are property of the government and must be returned upon request. This includes:
11.4.1. Driver’s licenses.
11.4.2. Contracting licenses.
11.5. A USA Passport. The passport indicates on page 6, note 2 that it is property of the U.S. government and must be returned upon request. So does 22 C.F.R. §51.7.
11.6. Any kind of government ID, including state Resident ID cards. Nearly all such ID say they belong to the government. This includes Common Access Cards (CACs) used in the U.S. military.
11.7. A vehicle license plate. Attaching it to the car makes a portion of the vehicle public property.
11.8. Stock in a public corporation. All stockholders in corporations are regarded by the courts as GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS!
“The court held that the first company’s charter was a contract between it and the state, within the protection of the constitution of the United States, and that the charter to the last company was therefore null and void., Mr. Justice DAVIS, delivering the opinion of the court, said that, if anything was settled by an unbroken chain of decisions in the federal courts, it was that an act of incorporation was a contract between the state and the stockholders, ‘a departure from which now would involve dangers to society that cannot be foreseen, would shock the sense of justice of the country, unhinge its business interests, and weaken, if not destroy, that respect which has always been felt for the judicial department of the government.’ “
[New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S. 650 (1885)]
“Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536. The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing. The highest right a man can have to anything; being used to refer to that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depends on another man’s courtesy.
The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal, everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, and includes real and personal property, easements, franchises, and incorporeal hereditaments, and includes every invasion of one’s property rights by actionable wrong. Labberton v. General Cas. Co. of America, 53 Wash.2d. 180, 332 P.2d. 250, 252, 254.
Property embraces everything which is or may be the subject of ownership, whether a legal ownership. or whether beneficial, or a private ownership. Davis v. Davis. TexCiv-App., 495 S.W.2d. 607. 611. Term includes not only ownership and possession but also the right of use and enjoyment for lawful purposes. Hoffmann v. Kinealy, Mo., 389 S.W.2d. 745, 752.Property, within constitutional protection, denotes group of rights inhering in citizen’s relation to physical thing, as right to possess, use and dispose of it. Cereghino v. State By and Through State Highway Commission, 230 Or. 439, 370 P.2d. 694, 697.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1095]
“Were the Contract a negotiable instrument, a property right would come into existence either on the date on which payment was due or on the date of execution. The court finds, however, that the Contract was not a negotiable instrument. It was, rather, a conditional promise to pay certain unfixed amounts upon demand but only after certain other dates, events, or payments.
A negotiable instrument must be an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount upon demand or at a definite time to order or bearer. Va. Code Ann. § 8.3-104, repealed by Acts 1992, c. 693 (stating that negotiable instruments covered by this title must be signed, unconditional promises payable on demand or a definite time to order or to bearer); Va. Code Ann. § 8.3A-104(a)(2) (“‘negotiable instrument‘ means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money”). 11 HN20 “
[Armstrong v. United States, 7 F.Supp.2d. 758 (1998)]
“A contract is property, and, like any other property, may be taken under condemnation proceedings for public use.”
[Kreegan v. State, 305 Kan. 1158 (2017)]
“It is generally conceded that a franchise is the subject of a contract between the grantor and the grantee, and that it does in fact constitute a contract when the requisite element of a consideration is present. Conversely, a franchise granted without consideration is not a contract binding upon the state, franchisee, or pseudo-franchisee. “
[36 American Jurisprudence 2d, Franchises, §6: As a Contract (1999)]
1. Larson v. South Dakota, 278 U.S. 429, 73 L.Ed. 441, 49 S.Ct. 196; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U.S. 544, 57 L.Ed. 633, 33 S.Ct. 303; Blair v. Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, 50 L.Ed. 801, 26 S.Ct. 427; Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. Brown, 176 Ark. 774, 4 S.W.2d. 15, 58 A.L.R. 534; Chicago General R. Co. v. Chicago, 176 Ill. 253, 52 N.E. 880; Louisville v. Louisville Home Tel. Co., 149 Ky. 234, 148 S.W. 13; State ex rel. Kansas City v. East Fifth Street R. Co. 140 Mo. 539, 41 S.W. 955; Baker v. Montana Petroleum Co., 99 Mont. 465, 44 P.2d. 735; Re Board of Fire Comrs. 27 N.J. 192, 142 A.2d. 85; Chrysler Light & P. Co. v. Belfield, 58 N.D. 33, 224 N.W. 871, 63 A.L.R. 1337; Franklin County v. Public Utilities Com., 107 Ohio.St. 442, 140 N.E. 87, 30 A.L.R. 429; State ex rel. Daniel v. Broad River Power Co. 157 S.C. 1, 153 S.E. 537; Rutland Electric Light Co. v. Marble City Electric Light Co., 65 Vt. 377, 26 A. 635; Virginia-Western Power Co. v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 469, 99 S.E. 723, 9 A.L.R. 1148, cert den 251 U.S. 557, 64 L.Ed. 413, 40 S.Ct. 179, disapproved on other grounds Victoria v. Victoria Ice, Light & Power Co. 134 Va. 134, 114 S.E. 92, 28 A.L.R. 562, and disapproved on other grounds Richmond v. Virginia Ry. & Power Co. 141 Va. 69, 126 S.E. 353.
2. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Bowers, 124 Pa 183, 16 A 836.
36 Am Jur 2d Franchises from Public Entities § 1
§ 1 Definitions
“A franchise constitutes a private property right. Similarly stated, a “franchise” is the special privilege awarded by government to a person or corporation and conveys a valuable property right. To be a “franchise,” the right possessed must be such as cannot be exercised without the express permission of the sovereign power. It is a privilege conferred by the government on an individual or a corporation to do that which does not belong to the citizens of the country generally by common right. “
[36 Am.Jur.2d, Franchises from Public Entities §1]
A governmental franchise is deemed to be privately owned, with all of the rights attaching to the ownership of the property in general, and is subject to taxation the same as any other estate in real property. In re South Bay Expressway, L.P., 434 B.R. 589 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2010) (applying California law).
6. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. City of Billings, 2003 MT 332, 318 Mont. 407, 80 P.3d 1247 (2003) (holding modified on other grounds by, Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre, 2006 MT 215, 333 Mont. 331, 142 P.3d. 864 (2006)); South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co. v. Town of Awendaw, 359 S.C. 29, 596 S.E.2d. 482 (2004).
A governmental “franchise” constitutes a special privilege granted by the government to particular individuals or companies to be exploited for private profits; such franchisees seek permission to use public streets or rights-of-way in order to do business with a municipality’s residents and are willing to pay a fee for this privilege. South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co. v. Town of Awendaw, 359 S.C. 29, 596 S.E.2d. 482 (2004).
8. New Orleans Gas-light Co. v. Louisiana Light & Heat Producing & Manufacturing Co., 115 U.S. 650, 6 S.Ct. 252, 29 L.Ed. 516 (1885); City of Groton v. Yankee Gas Services Co., 224 Conn. 675, 620 A.2d. 771 (1993); Artesian Water Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways and Transp., 330 A.2d. 432 (Del. Super. Ct. 1974), judgment modified on other grounds, 330 A.2d 441 (Del. 1974); City of Poplar Bluff v. Poplar Bluff Loan & Bldg. Ass’n, 369 S.W.2d. 764 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963); Dunmar Inv. Co. v. Northern Natural Gas Co., 185 Neb. 400, 176 N.W.2d. 4 (1970); Petition of South Lakewood Water Co., 61 N.J. 230, 294 A.2d. 13 (1972); Shaw v. City of Asheville, 269 N.C. 90, 152 S.E.2d. 139 (1967); Rural Water Sewer and Solid Waste Management, Dist. No. 1, Logan County, Oklahoma v. City of Guthrie, 2010 OK 51, 2010 WL 2600181 (Okla. 2010); Borough of Scottdale v. National Cable Television, Corp., 28 Pa.Commw. 387, 368 A.2d. 1323 (1977), order aff’d, 476 Pa. 47, 381 A.2d 859 (1977); Quality Towing, Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 345 S.C. 156, 547 S.E.2d. 862 (2001); State/Operating Contractors ABS Emissions, Inc. v. Operating Contractors/State, 985 S.W.2d. 646 (Tex. App. Austin 1999); Tri-County Elec. Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Gillette, 584 P.2d. 995 (Wyo. 1978).
6. Civil statuses (Form #13.008) convey and enforce PUBLIC rights and are therefore PUBLIC property
“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 domicile 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, 657*657 must depend;” 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)]
“§ 29. Status
It may be laid down that the ,status- or, as it is sometimes called, civil status, in contradistinction to political status – of a person depends largely, although not universally, upon domicil. The older jurists, whose opinions are fully collected by Story I and Burge, maintained, with few exceptions, the principle of the ubiquity of status, conferred by the lex domicilii with little qualification. Lord Westbury, in Udny v. Udny, thus states the doctrine broadly: “The civil status is governed by one single principle, namely, that of domicil, which is the criterion established by law for the purpose of determining civil status. For it is on this basis that the personal rights of the party – that is to say, the law which determines his majority and minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy-must depend.” Gray, C. J., in the late Massachusetts case of Ross v. Ross, speaking with special reference to capacity to inherit, says: “It is a general principle that the status or condition of a person, the relation in which he stands to another person, and by which he is qualified or made capable to take certain rights in that other’s property, is fixed by the law of the domicil; and that this status and capacity are to be recognized and upheld in every other State, so far as they are not inconsistent with its own laws and policy.”
[A Treatise on the Law of Domicil, National, Quasi-National, and Municipal, M.W. Jacobs, Little, Brown, and Company, 1887, p. 89]
- Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “civil status”
- Civil Status (Important!)-SEDM Litigation->Civil Status menu item.
- Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
7. The Constitution conveys mainly PRIVATE rights, which are PRIVATE property in the case of the Bill of Rights
The Constitution is a trust indenture. All trusts ARE property and CONVEY property. The CREATOR and therefore OWNER of the trust is called the GRANTOR. In the Constitution, that CREATOR is called “We the People”, “the State”, or “the body politic” by the courts.
For legal purposes, “the State” is synonymous with the group of people called “citizens“. It excludes EVERYONE else. These people are MEMBERS of the political community who make rules ONLY to govern THEMSELVES. Those rules come in the form of statutes. Those who are NOT “members” of this political community, therefore, are not subject to CIVIL STATUTORY rules that can only pertain or be enforced against CLUB MEMBERS. See:
Those who are NOT called “citizens” or not “club members” are called “persons” in the Constitution. Anything that applies to PERSONS in the Constitution protects and controls EVERYONE. The entire Bill of Rights fits in this category: It applies to PERSONS and is not limited ONLY to “citizens”.
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549, Mr. Chief Justice Waite, delivering the opinion of the court, said: “Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights.” There is no attempt in this definition, which was entirely [**381] sufficient for the argument, to exclude those members of the State who are citizens in the sense of participation in civil rights, though not in the exercise of political functions.”
Rights Of Persons
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
8. Those who OFFER property to you are a Merchant (Seller) under UCC. §2-104(1)
(1) “Merchant” means a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed by his employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary who by his occupation holds himself out as having such knowledge or skill.
_______________________§ 2-103. Definitions and Index of Definitions.
(d) “Seller” means a person who sells or contracts to sell goods.
10. The MERCHANT always prescribes ALL the terms of the offer and can withhold the property if those terms are not met. The withholding of the property is an exercise of the “right to exclude” aspect of ownership
“We have repeatedly held that, as to property reserved by its owner for private use, “the right to exclude [others is] `one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.’ ” Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 433 (1982), quoting Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979). “
[Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)]
“In this case, we hold that the “right to exclude,” so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right, falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation.”
[Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979)]
 See, e. g., United States v. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, 206 Ct.Cl. 649, 669-670, 513 F.2d. 1383, 1394 (1975); United States v. Lutz, 295 F.2d. 736, 740 (CA5 1961). As stated by Mr. Justice Brandeis, “[a]n essential element of individual property is the legal right to exclude others from enjoying it.” International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 250 (1918) (dissenting opinion).
11. You should always strive to be the Merchant in every business transaction to give yourself the upper hand
“For the Lord your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you.”
[Deut. 15:6, Bible, NKJV]
“The Lord will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow.”
[Deut. 28:12, Bible, NKJV]
“You shall not charge interest to your brother–interest on money or food or anything that is lent out at interest.”
[Deut. 23:19, Bible, NKJV ]
“To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess.”
[Deut. 23:20, Bible, NKJV]
“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” or domiciliary in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their [government] gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.”
[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]
“I [God] brought you up from Egypt [slavery] and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant [contract or franchise or agreement of ANY kind] with the inhabitants of this [corrupt pagan] land; you shall tear down their [man/government worshipping socialist] altars.‘ But you have not obeyed Me. Why have you done this?
“Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns [terrorists and persecutors] in your side and their gods will be a snare [slavery!] to you.'”
So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.
[Judges 2:1-4, Bible, NKJV]
“We can hardly find a denial of due process in these circumstances, particularly since it is even doubtful that appellee’s burdens under the program outweigh his benefits. It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.”
[Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82 (1942)]
“In the context of state taxation, the Due Process Clause limits States to imposing only taxes that “bea[r] fiscal relation to protection, opportunities and benefits given by the state.” Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co. , 311 U.S. 435, 444, 61 S.Ct. 246, 85 L.Ed. 267 (1940). The power to tax is, of course, “essential to the very existence of government,” McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 428, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), but the legitimacy of that power requires drawing a line between taxation and mere unjustified “confiscation.” Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland , 347 U.S. 340, 342, 74 S.Ct. 535, 98 L.Ed. 744 (1954). That boundary turns on “[t]he simple but controlling question … whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return.” Wisconsin , 311 U.S. at 444, 61 S.Ct. 246.”
[North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, 139 S. Ct. 2213, 2219-20 (2019)]
Here is what happens when you do:
“People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.”
[SEDM Opening Page, http://sedm.org]
13. The CREATOR of a civil statutory privilege/right/franchise is ALWAYS the owner and the Merchant granting or selling PUBLIC property
“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand.”
[VanHorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)]
“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
[John Marshal, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (M’Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 431)]
“These general rules are well settled:
(1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself, is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431-433; Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212.
(2) That, where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174-175; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 558; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35. Still, the fact that the right and the remedy are thus intertwined might not, if the provision stood alone, require us to hold that the remedy expressly given excludes a right of review by the Court of Claims, where the decision of the special tribunal involved no disputed question of fact and the denial of compensation was rested wholly upon the construction of the act. See Medbury v. United States, 173 U.S. 492, 198; Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U.S. 124; McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374; United States v. Laughlin, 249 U.S. 440. “
“If the time shall ever arrive when, for an object appealing, however strongly, to our sympathies, the dignity of the States shall bow to the dictation of Congress by conforming their legislation thereto, when the power and majesty and honor of those who created shall become subordinate to the thing of their creation, I but feebly utter my apprehensions when I express my firm conviction that we shall see ‘the beginning of the end.‘”
[Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)]
“A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate choice of the people…A State is altogether exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, or from any other exterior authority, unless in the special instances when the general Government has power derived from the Constitution itself.”
[Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419 (Dall.) (1794)]
“The great principle is this: because the constitution will not permit a state to destroy, it will not permit a law involving the power to destroy. In order to show that the case turned entirely on that point, let us suppose that the court had arrived to the conclusion that the bank [The Bank of the United States located in the state of Maryland] was an authorised instrument of government; but that it was not the intention of the constitution to prohibit the states from interfering with those instruments: would it not have been necessary to have decided that the Maryland act was constitutional? Of what importance was it that the bank was an authorized means of power, other than this, that it afforded a key to the meaning of the constitution? If the bank was a legitimate and proper instrument of power, then the constitution intended to protect it. If not, then no protection was intended. The question, whether it was a necessary and proper means, was auxiliary to the great question, whether the constitution intended to shelter it; and when the court arrived to the conclusion that such protection was intended, they interfered not in behalf of the bank, but in behalf of the sanctuary to which it had fled. They decided against the tax; because the subject had been placed beyond the power of the states, by the constitution. They decided, not on account of the subject, but on account of the power that protected it; they decided that a prohibition against destruction was a prohibition against a law involving the power of destruction.”
[Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830)]
“Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ Or shall your handiwork say, ‘He has no hands?’ Who to him who says to his father, ‘What are you begetting?’ Or to the woman, ‘What have you brought forth?’”
[Isaiah 45:9-10, Bible, NKJV]
“While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, a corporation is a creature of the State, and there is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.
There is a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation, and the latter, being a creature of the State, has not the constitutional right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State; and an officer of a corporation which is charged with criminal violation of a statute cannot plead the criminality of the corporation as a refusal to produce its books.
Franchises of a corporation chartered by a State are, so far as they involve questions of interstate commerce, exercised in subordination to the power of Congress to regulate such commerce; and while Congress may not have general visitatorial power over state corporations, its powers in vindication of its own laws are the same as if the corporation had been created by an act of Congress.
[Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)]
14. A statutory civil right (which is PUBLIC PROPERTY) exercised against a fiction of law (straw man, Form #05.042) such as a “person” is a right exercised against the GRANTOR/CREATOR of the OFFICE, and not the human(s) FILLING the office
This is an outgrowth of the law of agency. Thus, a civil statute used as a remedy in court against someone else is a remedy against the GOVERNMENT GRANTOR/CREATOR of the right, and not the OFFICER filling the office to which the PUBLIC right attaches. The CREATOR is the OWNER, and the OWNER of the right is the person legally RESPONSIBLE for its effect on others.
PUBLIC1 JURIS. Lat. Of public right. The word “public” in this sense means pertaining to the people, or affecting the community at large; that which concerns a multitude of people; and the word “right,” as so used, means a well-founded claim; an interest; concern; advantage; benefit. State v. Lyon, 63 Okl. 285, 165 P. 419, 420.
This term, as applied to a thing or right, means that it is open to or exercisable by all persons. It designates things which are owned by “the public:” that is, the entire state or community, and not by any private person. When a thing is common property, so that any one can make use of it who likes, it is said to be publici juris; as in the case of light, air, and public water. Sweet.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1397]
They use Latin in the definition to disguise the term “public right” because they are trying to pull a fast one on the mainstream populace. Whenever a court or a legal dictionary uses Latin, guaranteed they are trying to deceive or mislead you to disguise their LACK of lawful authority.
Notice the phrase in the above “owned by the public”, and by that they mean PUBLIC property. The word “benefit” also betrays a privilege as well. “Common property” implies COLLECTIVE control and ownership, rather than PERSONAL ownership.
They use the phrase “it is open to or exercisable by all persons”, but they can ONLY mean all human beings consensually domiciled in the forum and EXCLUDING those who are NOT. In other words, VOLUNTARY CLUB MEMBERS. Otherwise, involuntary servitude and a Fifth Amendment taking of property would be the result. See:
|Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002 PDF: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm HTML: https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/DomicileBasisForTaxation.htm|
STATUTORY persons always require a domicile within the CIVIL jurisdiction of a geographical region. That domicile must be CONSENSUAL (Form #05.003). If you don’t consent to a domicile (Form #05.002) in the forum or venue, the only CIVIL protection you have is the CONSTITUTION and the COMMON LAW and STATUTORY CIVIL law (Form #05.037) DOES NOT and CANNOT APPLY. See:
|Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037 https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm|
The definition of “PUBLIC RIGHT/PUBLICI JURIS” is therefore deceptive and equivocates (Form #05.014), because the TWO contexts for “persons” are not identified or qualified and are MUTUALLY exclusive:
- CONSTITUTIONAL “persons”: Human beings protected by the Bill of Rights and the common law and NOT statutory civil law.
- STATUTORY “persons”: Fictional creations of Congress (“Straw men”, Form #05.042) which only have the limited subset of CONSTITUTIONAL rights entirely defined and controlled by Congress.
- Either you have CONSTITUTIONAL rights (Form #10.002) in a given context, or you have STATUTORY privileges (Form #05.030).
- If you claim STATUTORY privileges, you SURRENDER CONSTITUTIONAL rights.
“The words “privileges” and “immunities,” like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law. Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption. “
[The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pdf]See Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408; 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584; A J. Lien, “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States,” in Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 54, p. 31.
They are therefore DELIBERATELY deceiving you at the very entry point of asserting PUBLIC CIVIL jurisdiction. They want you to UNKNOWINGLY surrender CONSTITUTIONAL rights by FALSELY believing that CONSTITUTIONAL “persons” and STATUTORY ”persons” are equivalent, even though they are MUTUALLY exclusive and non-overlapping.
- Proof that “Publici Juris”/PUBLIC RIGHTS Include the ENTIRE Civil Code
- Enumeration of Inalienable Rights, Form #10.002, Section 9.2: The “Publici Juris” or “Public Rights” Scam
- Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “public office”
- Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037 (PDF)
- Proof That There Is a “Straw man”, Form #05.042 (PDF)
15. If you use a civil statutory fictional office for private gain, the creator of the office is the owner of all income and property attached to the office through the use of the franchise mark, the Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number
They must reward you with a portion of the PUBLIC property attached to the office to induce you to volunteer for the office to begin with. Thus, a “trade or business” partnership is established between you, the PRIVATE and them the PUBLIC to remit the “kickback”. This is called a “return”.
[26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(26)]
- Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “trade or business”
- About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012 (PDF)
- About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #07.004 (HTML)
16. How to DESTROY all private property and private rights and make us all public servants whether we want to be or not
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
[James Madison. House of Representatives, February 7, 1792, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties; More quotes like this later in section 5.1]
“For the love of money [and even government “benefits”, which are payments] is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.”
[1 Timothy 6:5-12, Bible, NKJV]
“A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another.”
[U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]
“To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals.. is none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms.“
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]