Ownership as the Origin of the Right to Define

1. Introduction

Throughout this site, we emphasize the importance of PRIVATE property ownership as a defense against government corruption. The government uses exactly the same tactic of ownership of PUBLIC property as the origin of ALL of their CIVIL legislative authority, in fact, as we prove in:

Proof that “Publici Juris”/PUBLIC RIGHTS Include the ENTIRE Civil Code, SEDM

But EXACTLY how is that ownership expressed in your relations with others from a LEGAL perspective? That is the subject of this article.

2. Ownership

Ownership implies at LEAST the two following aspects of legal rights over the thing owned:

  1. The right to LAWFULLY CONTROL any and all others who want to USE or BENEFIT from the thing owned.
  2. The right to EXCLUDE any and all others from the use of the thing owned.

The two aspects of ownership above are the essence of what the Constitution identifies as the power to “make needful rules and regulations” for PUBLIC property in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2:

U.S. Constitution
Article 4: States Relations
Section 3: Admission of New States; Property of United States
Clause 2. Property of the United States

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

The above constitutional provision is deceptive, because it does not directly address what “other Property” is. In fact, it can be ANYTHING: civil statutory rights, privileges, chattel property, contracts, franchises, buildings, etc. If they spelled all these things out as “property” in the above constitutional provision, they would have to admit that ALL CIVIL STATUTES they enact are PROPERTY and PRIVILEGES owned by them and granted to you with legal strings attached that become HUGE shackles around your legs. We exhaustively prove this in:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

3. YOUR rights as the OWNER of Private Property

But what about YOUR EQUAL right to “make needful rules and regulations respecting YOUR absolutely owned PRIVATE property”? The U.S. government has been described by the courts as “a government of delegated powers“. Those powers come from YOU and can come from NO OTHER SOURCE without creating a literal pagan god in violation of the First Amendment. We prove this in Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016. Because they are a government of delegated powers, you have that SAME power as they do to “make all needful rules respecting YOUR property” as well, and even to regulate and control THEM in the use of that PRIVATE property. This is the MAIN way you can DEFEND yourself from their corruption and covetousness, in fact.

Contracts, franchises, licenses, or even “quasi-contracts” such as the civil statutory code (see Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037) are an example of such “needful rules”. All these legal mechanisms contain a DEFINITIONS section. The PURPOSE of the DEFINITIONS section is:

  1. To literally CREATE the “res” that is the OBJECT of rights. Remember that RIGHTS are PROPERTY. See:
    Authorities on Rights as Property
  2. To CREATE a CIVIL Status (see the Litigation->Civil Status menu) as a “fiction of law” that in effect REPRESENTS the “res“. Recall that the CREATOR is always the OWNER, as we prove in:
    Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
  3. To identify the privileges/rights and corresponding obligations of all the fictional PERSONS who USE or BENEFIT from the “res” or property being created and regulated. These people, in effect, volunteer to become AGENTS of the property owner when handling the “res” or property under the terms of the contract, franchise, or agreement regulating the use of the property. They must all VOLUNTEER for the role of STEWARD or CUSTODIAN over the property temporarily granted or loaned or else UNCONSTITUTIONAL slavery is the result in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
  4. To firmly fix the relations of all fictional PERSONS handling the property so that control and beneficial use of the property by the Owner is respected and protected.
  5. To sometimes create or at least recognize a specific organization to manage the property created by the contract, trust, franchise, or license. In a governmental sense, that organization is always a corporation. All governments are corporations that manage a collection of community/public property. Agents of this corporation manage the property and corresponding privileges/rights of the corporation. In a governmental sense, these AGENTS are called “public officers“. A “public office“, in fact, is LEGALLY DEFINED as someone IN CHARGE (exercising stewardship) over PUBLIC property. WITHOUT public property, there can in fact BE no public officers!
  6. To identify those who are not parties to the contract, franchise, or license granting the property and how they are permitted to interact with the property through the agents managing the property. In a governmental sense, these parties are nonresident or stateless. An example of such a party is a nonresident alien in the Internal Revenue Code.

4. Ownership and COMMERCE with others

The OWNER is the person OFFERING the property to others for SALE as the “Merchant” under U.C.C. 2-104(1). The person BUYING or RENTING the property granted by the OWNER is the “Buyer” under U.C.C. 2-103(1)(a). The Merchant always writes ALL the rules or conditions under which the Buyer may use the property granted. The only choice the Buyer has is to accept those terms in order to gain temporary custody or partial control of the property sought. The Buyer has a qualified interest in the property of the Owner which is often temporary and revocable at the whim of the absolute owner of the property.

So we can see that:

  1. The OWNER is the one who is the ORIGIN of the CONTRACT, FRANCHISE, or LICENSE regulating the use of the property and the DEFINITIONS that are within it.
  2. The CREATOR is always the OWNER, just like the Bible identifies God as the CREATOR, and also the OWNER of the ENTIRE Heavens and the Earth and all people ON the Earth.
  3. The ACT of DEFINING terms is an act of CREATION. That power of being a CREATOR of anything can come ONLY from OWNERSHIP itself.
  4. OWNERSHIP and THE RIGHT TO DEFINE always travel TOGETHER and are INSEPARABLE. In that sense, they are similar to the duality of OWNERSHIP and RESPONSIBILITY. You cannot OWN a thing without being RESPONSIBLE for the damage that it causes to others.

The above considerations are VERY important. They are also VERY subtle aspects of freedom that few, in our observation, truly understand. But without understanding these things, you can NEVER be free because your power to defend yourself from government abuse comes MAINLY through your ownership of PRIVATE property and your use of it to prevent or control the government from injuring you.

5. Practical Application

The concepts in this short article have very broad application to every aspect of the CIVIL and COMMON law. Understanding them can provide a VERY potent weapon to defend yourself from bureaucrats who want to exercise their power to “regulate” every aspect of your life. Why? Because here is what happens to those who are “governed” and “regulated” through the civil statutory code:

“To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated, regimented, closed in, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, evaluated, censored, commanded; all by creatures that have neither the right, nor wisdom, nor virtue . . .

To be governed means that at every move, operation, or transaction one is noted, registered, entered in a census, taxed, stamped, priced, assessed, patented, licensed, authorized, recommended, admonished, prevented, reformed, set right, corrected. Government means to be subjected to tribute, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, pressured, mystified, robbed; all in the name of public utility and the general good.

Then, at the first sign of resistance or word of complaint, one is repressed, fined, despised, vexed, pursued, hustled, beaten up, garroted, imprisoned, shot, machine-gunned, judged, sentenced, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to cap it all, ridiculed, mocked, outraged, and dishonored. That is government, that is its justice and its morality! . . . O human personality! How can it be that you have cowered in such subjection for sixty centuries?”

[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (born A. D. 1809 – died A. D. 1865)]

Every dispute with covetous tyrants who want to “govern” you as described above WITHOUT your consent ALWAYS begins with a dispute about THEIR power to write definitions and associate you with the thing defined, now doesn’t it? Below is an example:

Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023

In order for them to PROVE they have the POWER to write a definition and associate you with the CIVIL STATUS in the definition, THEY have the burden of proof that:

  1. THEY have an ownership interest in the THING or “res” that is the SUBJECT of the definition.
  2. They LAWFULLY acquired that ownership interest.
  3. You CONSENTED to PROCURE a “benefit” of that ownership interest.
  4. That there IS, IN FACT, a “benefit” of using the “res” or thing granted or loaned.

The U.S. Supreme Court PROVED this is the government’s burden of proof in asserting jurisdiction when they held:

“The compensation which the owners of property, not having any special rights or privileges from the government in connection with it, may demand for its use, or for their own services in union with it, forms no element of consideration in prescribing regulations for that purpose.

[. . .]

“It is only where some right or privilege [which are GOVERNMENT PROPERTY] is conferred by the government or municipality upon the owner, which he can use in connection with his property, or by means of which the use of his property is rendered more valuable to him, or he thereby enjoys an advantage over others, that the compensation to be received by him becomes a legitimate matter of regulation. Submission to the regulation of compensation in such cases is an implied condition of the grant, and the State, in exercising its power of prescribing the compensation, only determines the conditions upon which its concession shall be enjoyed. When the privilege ends, the power of regulation ceases.”

[. . .]

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) ]

If the government can’t demonstrate they gave you PROPERTY that belonged to them and continues to belong to them after you receive it or stewardship over it, that you voluntarily accepted and thereby “benefitted” from it, then their power to REGULATE your conduct in CONNECTION with the property ceases. And if there is no authority to CIVILLY regulate, then there is NO JURISDICTION to enforce and the enforcement action must be judicially enjoined with no discretion on the part of the judge to do otherwise.

The above burden of proof is a VERY difficult one to meet. In fact, we prove the OPPOSITE of the above is true in the context of EVERYTHING the government does from a CIVIL perspective in the following memorandum on our site:

Why the Government is the Only Real Beneficiary of All Government Franchises, Form #05.051** (Member Subscriptions)

Intuitively, we can realize the analysis in the above memorandum is true just from the perspective that:

  1. Governments don’t CREATE, PRODUCE, or MANUFACTURE anything physical of value. That’s what private industry is for.
  2. Governments can only regulate or protect their OWN PUBLIC property, not PRIVATE property.
  3. The only way they can acquire ANY property is to deceive OTHERS into giving it to them without compensation.
  4. It is an abuse of the taxing power to TRANSFER otherwise PRIVATE property between PRIVATE individuals.
  5. Money paid to the government in the form of “taxes” can ONLY be spent on government and never on PRIVATE interests. See Loan Assoc. v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655 (1874).

Another way of saying the above is that “GOVERNMENT” is an “eleemosynary trust” that may NEVER be operated “for profit” and may never impair the right of private property without the consent of the owner. According to the Declaration of Independence, the main “benefit” of the constitutional trust indenture (public trust) is the right of PRIVATE property (“that to SECURE these rights [which are PRIVATE PROPERTY], governments are instituted among men, deriving their JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed). The “trust” is the constitution, in fact. Public officers serving on behalf of the PUBLIC trust have as their MAIN job the protection of PRIVATE property, in fact:

“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1]  Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts[2]   That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3]  and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4]   It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5]   Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.[6]

[63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247]



[1] State ex rel. Nagle v Sullivan, 98 Mont 425, 40 P.2d. 995, 99 A.L.R. 321; Jersey City v Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d. 8.

[2] Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524. A public official is held in public trust.  Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist) 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill Dec 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697, app gr 117 Ill Dec 226, 520 N.E.2d. 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill.2d. 147, 131 Ill.Dec. 145, 538 N.E.2d. 520.

[3]Chicago Park Dist. V. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill.App.3d. 222, 63 Ill.Dec.134, 437 N.E.2d. 783.

[4] United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill) 816 F.2d. 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds 484 U.S. 807, 98 L.Ed.2d. 18, 108 S.Ct. 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F.2d. 1343, cert den 486 U.S. 1035, 100 L.Ed.2d. 608, 108 S.Ct. 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F.2d. 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass) 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223).

[5] Chicago ex rel. Cohen v Keane, 64 Ill.2d. 559, 2 Ill.Dec. 285, 357 N.E.2d. 452, later proceeding (1st Dist) 105 Ill.App.3d. 298, 61 Ill.Dec. 172, 434 N.E.2d. 325.

[6]Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson (Ind App) 656 N.E.2d. 1172, reh gr (Ind App) 659 N.E.2d. 260, reh den (Jan 24, 1996) and transfer den (May 28, 1996).

When a public officer gets greedy and wants to abuse the power to tax to take away or convert PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property without your consent, then they are violating their fiduciary duty and doing so usually because of the LOVE of money. According to the Bible, the LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil!

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
[1 Tim. 6:10, Bible, NKJV]

When government IS operated for profit or with the goal of STEALING or CONVERTING as much PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property as they can, then the PUBLIC TRUST becomes a SHAM TRUST that is ENDLESSLY corrupted as exhaustively proven in:

  1. De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
  2. Government Corruption, Form #11.401

6. Conclusions

Some readers might be inclined to say of this article:

“Well, you may be right about this, but the chance to address these issues at an administrative level will be scarce, and litigation may be necessary to directly confront this issue directly. Clerks are jerks who don’t study the law, so any kind of discussion of this will fall on deaf ears and get a dear in the headlight response from the jerk clerks. It may not be worth the effort to TURN into a REAL remedy, unless you are ALREADY litigating or the target of a criminal prosecution. I don’t think there is any way to solve all of these problems without lengthy litigation (possibly not even with) which is in and of itself new problems that are time and resource sinks.

I do not agree with the premise of your approach. I just think it’s likely to lead to issues that would wind up leading to necessary litigation where it otherwise may not be needed.

I agree wholeheartedly that it’s a massive dupe fest but that’s why there are exits available, but most people will have evidence of liability and to sit idly by and not deal with that is stupid.

Part of living an enjoyable life is not picking fights just for fun. I get that it’s your ministry to decipher the mess and guide people through but there are ADMINISTRATIVE remedies available (the 1040NR) without having to create your own which they likely can’t even entertain or won’t without litigation. Administrative handling is so much more palatable to me. I’m not afraid of a fight but I’d rather live my life than constantly be “fighting city hall”.

But filing a 1040NR as a nonresident alien doesn’t accept that office in the sense that all your income is subject to tax by virtue of filling that office in an in personam sense. It connects a small donation and establishes a record of little or no tax due and recovers the erroneously withheld amounts. Nonresident status is subject matter as I’m sure you know where citizen or resident is in personam.

We respond to this retort by saying:

Absolutely. The 1040NR solves MOST of the problems you point out of AVOIDING the office of “citizen” or “resident”, but doesn’t solve ALL of them. The BIGGER problem is operating in an ENTIRELY private capacity with no ability to civilly regulate or control, either directly through an office or indirectly by DINKING with your property to coerce you into doing something.

The premise is to directly challenge the literal source of their AUTHORITY. That source is the ability to write definitions and attach you to the offices that those definitions create. What other fight is there? Everything else is beating around the bush, literally.

AUTHOR=person writing definitions. AUTHOR-ITY. How much more direct can one get than THAT?

If you are already in court because they won’t ADMINISTRATIVELY refund STOLEN private property criminally “laundered” by legally ignorant withholding agents or employers who won’t read or follow REAL law, then this is a valid approach to take in front of the most informed audience possible: A judge and full-time legal professionals, instead of jerk clerks. If you aren’t willing to fight for your rights in this setting, the ONLY place that matters, then do you REALLY deserve those rights? Only what you have to fight for will you truly value ANYWAY.

The approach is also useful if you are the unjust target of criminal prosecution for failure to perform or incorrectly performing the duties of the CIVIL public office that attach to using government property. Such prosecutions we call “quasi-criminal”, because they DEPEND on a PREDICATE civil status such as “taxpayer” or “person” that is voluntary and which one can’t volunteer for as a NONRESIDENT party without criminally impersonating a public officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912.

The FAKE/DE FACTO CIVIL offices and fooling you into volunteering for them or tolerating them as a leash around your neck are where all the trouble starts. The UNLAWFUL and even (sometimes) UNCONSTITUTIONAL creation of these public offices attached to public property is where ALL the attention should be focused, instead of bending over a LITTLE and tolerating the slavery that they implement as described in:

Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052

More on the subject of this article dealing with ownership, definitions, and the affect of both on commerce between you and the government in:

Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5.4-5.8


Comments are closed.

CLICK HERE if you are having trouble accessing the site on some but not all of your internet devices

Copyright/License: Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM)