Proof of Facts: That “Publici Juris”/PUBLIC RIGHTS Include the ENTIRE Civil Code
This article derives from:
Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023, Section 4.1
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf
Principles underlying this analysis:
- The CREATOR of a thing is always the absolute owner. See:
Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm - CIVIL fictions of law such as “person” are legislative creations of congress and therefore PROPERTY of Congress. See:
Proof That There is a “Straw Man”, Form #05.042
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf - If you invoke a civil statutory status such as “person” in court as a method to achieve remedy:
3.1 That remedy is a RIGHT as property which gives you the ability to enforce a CORRESPONDING obligation on the part of the government as enforcer.
3.2 That status is government/PUBLIC property you are “borrowing” to which legal strings attach.
3.3 The government is the GRANTOR or MERCHANT of the property, and you are the BUYER or BORROWER.
3.4 The MERCHANT always makes the rules under the U.C.C. The civil statutory code is, in fact, the INSTANTIATION of all the rules that regulate the use of such PUBLIC property.
3.5 The government’s EXCLUSIVE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY over you as the Buyer/borrower originate from the RULES in the civil code. Those rules are a regulation of the use of PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT property. Without such a property interest in the civil status or “res” you are invoking, they would have no authority to WRITE such rules or GRANT you the remedies found therein.
3.6 Your obligations are someone ELSE’S rights because the obligation has to be owed to SOMEONE. If that someone is the government, then in effect you are in custody of government property as an obligor UNTIL you fully satisfy the agreed upon obligation. A public officer is in fact legally defined as someone “in charge of the PROPERTY of the PUBLIC” and that property is YOUR obligation to the government. - The legal strings which attach to the CIVIL STATUTORY STATUS of “person” attach as OBLIGATIONS. You cannot acquire such civil statutory OBLIGATIONS WITHOUT your consent otherwise.
- Invoking the civil statutory status of “person” and claiming its “benefits”, protections, immunities, and PRIVILEGES therefore constitutes:
5.1 An act of IMPLIED CONSENT. See Form #05.003.
5.2 A “tacit procuration”. - If you don’t want to claim a civil statutory status, you still have a remedy to protect your PRIVATE property, but it MUST derive from the CONSTITUTION and NOT the civil statutory law.
- CIVIL STATUTORY remedies are PUBLIC rights while CONSTITUTIONAL remedies are PRIVATE rights. You must invoke ONE or the other but NEVER both. They are mutually exclusive and non-overlapping.
- The only thing the statutory civil law protects is PUBLIC/COLLECTIVE rights and NEVER PRIVATE constitutionally protected rights.
- You cannot invoke a civil statutory remedy without a CONSENSUAL domicile in the forum granting the privilege. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf - If you want to AVOID the civil statutory obligations, then either DON’T invoke the status in court or don’t choose a civil domicile and instead be a “nonresident” or “non-resident non-person”. See:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf - If you don’t consent to the civil status and by implication the CIVIL OBLIGATIONS of the status and do not invoke and specifically DENY its “benefits”, but the GOVERNMENT as your opponent enforces those obligations and indirectly the VOLUNTARY STATUS against you, they are:
11.1 Engaging in criminal identity theft. See Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046.
11.2 Violating the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude.
11.3 Engaging in criminal human trafficking.
11.4 Engaging in criminal PEONAGE in the case of taxation, which is slavery to pay off a debt. - The equivocation abused in the definitions and authorities below are a method of sophistry intended to DISGUISE or HIDE the fact that they need your consent to civilly govern you and don’t want you to be able to opt out and leave the “franchise cage” created by statutory civil privileges. If you opted out, they would lose most of their authority and power over you.
- In the context of the authorities on this page:
13.1 “LEGAL” is equated with CIVIL STATUTORY and PUBLIC context.
13.2 “LAWFUL” is equated with the CONSTITUTIONAL or PRIVATE context. - The entire process above is nebulously identified by the judiciary as a “quasi contract”. They absolutely and deliberately REFUSE to precisely identify the operations of all the mechanisms described here or exactly what they mean by a “quasi contract”, because if they did, it would literally destroy MOST of their power and importance and jurisdiction within constitutional states.
- When Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence talked about an INVASION of the states with “swarms of officers” (civil statutory “persons”), the above process is EXACTLY what he had in mind. It’s a violation of the Constitution and a criminal tort, and because it’s a crime, you can’t lawfully CONSENT to engage in it. SEE:
Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-Memlaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf
More on the subject of this article at:
- The “Publici Juris” SCAM, SEDM Blog
https://sedm.org/the-publici-juris-or-public-rights-scam/ - Private Right or Public Right? Course, Form #12.044
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PrivateRightOrPublicRight.pdf - Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf - Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “public right”
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/PublicRight.htm - Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf - Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf - Why the Federal Income Tax is a Privilege Tax Upon Government Property, Form #04.404 (Member Subscriptions)
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
“It is not open to question that one who has acquired rights of property necessarily based upon a [CIVIL] statute [Form #05.037] may not attack that statute as unconstitutional, for he cannot both assail it and rely upon it in the same proceeding. *528 Hurley v. Commission of Fisheries, 257 U.S. 223, 225, 42 S.Ct. 83, 66 L.Ed. 206.”
[Frost v. Corporation Commission, 278 U.S. 515, 49 S.Ct. 235 (U.S., 1929)]
[EDITORIAL: By “acquired rights of property”, the court is talking about accepting PUBLIC privileges or “benefits”, which are PUBLIC property. Privileges conveyed by civil statutes are PROPERTY. Receipt of said PUBLIC property essentially causes you to surrender your status as a CONSTITUTIONAL “person” protected by the Bill of Rights and exchange that PRIVATE status for a PUBLIC civil statutory status [Form #13.008] that is a fiction of law, a creation of Congress, and therefore PROPERTY of Congress. This is the MAIN mechanism by which governments acquire [meaning PROCURE] the right to regulate you as a Merchant under the U.C.C.: Because you are in VOLUNTARY possession of PUBLIC property that you asked for. That right to regulate INCLUDES the right to tax.
HOWEVER, the acquisition of such PUBLIC property and PUBLIC rights must be done so LAWFULLY, which means it must occur within the EXCLUSIVE legislative jurisdiction of the entity legislatively granting the privilege. If it is done EXTRATERRITORIALLY in a legislatively foreign state, such as a state of the Union, it becomes an unconstitutional INVASION in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. This is covered in:
- License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2852002685220457827 - Sources of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, SEDM
https://sedm.org/sources-of-extraterritorial-jurisdiction-domicile-contract-or-merely-consent-comity/ - Administrative State: Tactics and Defenses, Form #12.041
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AdminState.pdf
Like Esau, who exchanged his birthright for a bowl of pottage in the Bible in Gen. 25, you SOLD your FREEDOM for government privileges. By doing so, you invited the CURSE direct from God documented below not unlike the CURSE upon Esau:
| How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government, Family Guardian Fellowship https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm |
PRIVATE. Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public generally. Not official; not clothed with [PUBLIC] office. People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N.W. 372, 373, 111 A.L.R. 721.
As to private “Act,” “Agent,” “Bill,” “Boundary,” “Bridge,” “Business,” “Carrier,” “Chapel,” Corporation,” “Detective,” “Dwelling House,””Easement,” “Examination,” “Ferry,” “Nuisance,””Pond,” “Property,” “Prosecutor,” “Rights,” “Road,” “Sale,” “School,” “Seal,” “Statute,””Stream,” “Trust,” “Water,” “War,” “Way,'” ‘Wharf,” and “Wrongs,” see those titles.
[Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1358]
“PRIVATE PERSON. An individual who is not the incumbent of an [PUBLIC] office.”
[Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1359]
[EDITORIAL: The “office” they are talking about, in the context of civil statutory law, is the CIVIL STATUS of “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, “spouse”, “driver”, etc. That office is property of the government WITHIN the government as a corporation. All those claiming the status are therefore “officers of a public corporation” subject to civil statutory regulation.]
Res. Lat. The subject matter of a trust or will. In the civil law, a thing; an object. As a term of the law, this word has a very wide and extensive signification, including not only things which are objects of property, but also such as are not capable of individual ownership. And in old English law it is said to have a general import, comprehending both corporeal and incorporeal things of whatever kind, nature, or species. By “res,” according to the modern civilians, is meant everything that may form an object of rights, in opposition to “persona,” which is regarded as a subject of rights. “Res,” therefore, in its general meaning, comprises actions of all kinds; while in its restricted sense it comprehends every object of right, except actions. This has reference to the fundamental division of the Institutes that all law relates either to persons, to things, or to actions.
Res is everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject-matter or [CIVIL] status. In re Riggle’s Will, 11 A.D.2d 51 205 N.Y.S.2d 19, 21, 22. The term is particularly applied to an object, subject-matter, or status, considered as the defendant in an action, or as an object against which, directly, proceedings are taken. Thus, in a prize case, the captured vessel is “the res”; and proceedings of this character are said to be in rem. (See In personam; In Rem.) “Res” may also denote the action or proceeding, as when a cause, which is not between adversary parties, it entitled “In re ______”.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1304-1306]
[EDITORIAL: The civil “status” of “person” is an example of a “res” as described above. This “STATUS” is the OBJECT of rights, not the SUBJECT of them. The human CONSENSUALLY FILLING the civil status of “person” is the SUBJECT of those rights. OBJECTS, SUBJECT MATTERS, or STATUSES are all equivalent and all fall in the category of “res”. An example of a “res” is “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, “driver”, “taxpayer”, etc. An action against a civil statutory “person” is the defendant or plaintiff in a civil action and the fictional party against whom legal proceedings are taken DIRECTLY. The human being consensually filling the office or status is the INDIRECT object of the civil proceeding.]
PUBLICI 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]
[EDITORIAL: The civil code documents an AGGREGATE of rights, and the civil statuses WITHIN the civil code such as “person” are the OBJECT of those rights. The person CONSENSUALLY filling the PUBLIC office of “person” is the SUBJECT of those rights.]
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 [PUBLIC CIVIL] 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]
[EDITORIAL: A civil statutory “person” is an aggregate of rights, because many different TYPES of rights can attach to it as a legal fiction.]
The rights which claimants thus acquired through the previous appropriations of the State are property rights. HN7 “Property” in the strict legal sense is an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by government. In the ordinary sense it is used to indicate the thing itself rather than the rights attached to it. Whether or not we employ the term in one or the other of these senses, the result is the same, so far as the interference with [**49] property is concerned; for, while in the former attention is directed to the rights which make up the thing, in the latter the thing which constitutes the aggregation of these rights is emphasized. In both cases the rights attached to the thing are the subject of concern. A reference to the cases in the courts will show the various rights which have been protected under the name of property but which, in reality, are rights attached to something which in the ordinary mind constitutes property. In Forster v. Scott, 136 N.Y. 577, Judge O’Brien said: “HN8 Whenever a law deprives the [*289] owner of the beneficial use and free enjoyment of his property, or imposes restraints upon such use and enjoyment, that materially affect its value, without legal process or compensation, it deprives him of his property within the meaning of the Constitution. All that is beneficial in property arises from its use and the fruits of that use, and whatever deprives a person of them deprives him of all that is desirable and valuable in the title and possession.”
In Pape v. New York & Harlem R. R. Co., 74 A.D. 175, Justice Ingraham said: “It is sufficient to say that this provision of the Constitution [**50] ‘is to have a large and liberal interpretation, and that the fundamental principle of free government, expressed in these words, protects not only life, liberty and property in a strict and technical sense, against unlawful invasion by the government in the exertion of governmental power in any of its departments, but also protects every essential incident to the enjoyment of those rights.’ ( People v. King, 110 N.Y. 418.)”
[Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc. 263 (1909)]
“As a rule, franchises spring from contracts between the sovereign power and private citizens, made upon valuable considerations, for purposes of individual advantage as well as public benefit, and thus a franchise partakes of a double nature and character. So far as it affects or concerns the public, it is publici juris and is subject to governmental control. The legislature may prescribe the manner of granting it, to whom it may be granted, the conditions and terms upon which it may be held, and the duty of the grantee to the public in exercising it, and may also provide for its forfeiture upon the failure of the grantee to perform that duty. But when granted, it becomes the property of the grantee, and is a private right, subject only to the governmental control growing out of its other nature as publici juris. “
[Am.Jur.2d. Legal Encyclopedia, Franchises, §4: Generally (1999)]
[EDITORIAL: Franchises are “publici juris”, meaning a legislatively created public right against public property. The public property granted are the statutory civil rights that attach to the civil status of “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, etc. The civil code in effect acts as a “protection franchise” and the public rights granted are the protection granted to those CONSENTING to act as government officers. These public rights are not available to those who do NOT consent to the civil status that the rights attach to. That status is a “res” in property terms. The obligations attached to the status/office are the method of “paying for” or “tacitly procuring” the rights that the status comes with. Consent to the civil status is manifested by filling out a government form and ASKING for the status, such as “driver license application”. See Avoiding Traps in Government Forms Course, Form #12.023; https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidingTrapsGovForms.pdf. The civil code is therefore the “employment agreement” or “employment compact” governing those who volunteer and pursue the benefits/rights of the protection franchise. The rights and remedies it provides are only available to those who have ALSO voluntarily chosen a civil domicile. See Form #05.002.]
“It is universally conceded that a divorce proceeding, in so far as it affects the status of the parties, is an action in rem. 19 Cor. Jur. 22, § 24; 3 Freeman on Judgments (5th Ed.) 3152. It is usually said that the ‘marriage status’ is the res. Both parties to the marriage, and the state of the residence of each party to the marriage, has an interest in the marriage status. In order that any court may obtain jurisdiction over an action for divorce that court must in some way get jurisdiction over the res (the marriage status).
[Delanoy v. Delanoy, 216 Cal. 27, 13 P.2d. 719 (CA. 1932)]
[EDITORIAL: An IN REM proceeding is one against PROPERTY. The “marriage status” itself IS the property or “res”. Thus the civil status of “spouse” under the family code civil franchise is PUBLIC property CREATED and OWNED by the legislature.]
“Public office. The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public, or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]
[EDITORIAL: A “public officer” is someone in charge of the PROPERTY of the public. In the case of the civil statutory code, that PROPERTY is the civil status (Form #13.008) created and granted legislatively by Congress, and the “aggregation of rights” that it represents as an “object of property”.]
”But it was also contended in that court, and is insisted upon here, that the judgment in the State court against the plaintiff was void for want of personal service of process on him, or of his appearance in the action in which it was rendered, and that the premises in controversy could not be subjected to the payment of the demand 722*722 of a resident creditor except by a proceeding in rem; that is, by a direct proceeding against the property for that purpose. If these positions are sound, the ruling of the Circuit Court as to the invalidity of that judgment must be sustained, notwithstanding our dissent from the reasons upon which it was made. And that they are sound would seem to follow from two well-established principles of public law respecting the jurisdiction of an independent State over persons and property. The several States of the Union are not, it is true, in every respect independent, many of the rights and powers which originally belonged to them being now vested in the government created by the Constitution. But, except as restrained and limited by that instrument, they possess and exercise the authority of independent States, and the principles of public law to which we have referred are applicable to them. One of these principles is, that
[1] every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. As a consequence, every State has the power to determine for itself the civil status and capacities of its inhabitants; to prescribe the subjects upon which they may contract, the forms and solemnities with which their contracts shall be executed, the rights and obligations arising from them, and the mode in which their validity shall be determined and their obligations enforced; and also to regulate the manner and conditions upon which property situated within such territory, both personal and real, may be acquired, enjoyed, and transferred.
[2] The other principle of public law referred to follows from the one mentioned; that is, that no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory.”
[Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878);
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13333263776496540273]
[EDITORIAL: When any state or the national Congress wants to reach outside its exclusive territory (extraterritorially), it may only do so by using property or rights WITHIN its territory. An action against a civil “person” within a constitutional state that is created and owned by the national government is an action against a public office domiciled in the District of Columbia as required by 4 U.S.C. 72 directly, and against its OWNER indirectly. It is an “in rem” proceeding against the legislatively but not constitutionally FOREIGN office with a FOREIGN civil domicile. The officer voluntarily filling and animating the FOREIGN office has a domicile independent of the office he or she represents. In that sense, a state national vindicating a NATIONAL public right or civil statutory right is acting as a “res”-“ident” agent for a foreign public office with a foreign domicile.]
[…] Proof that “Publici Juris”/Public Rights Include the ENTIRE Civil Code […]
[…] Proof that “Publici Juris”/PUBLIC RIGHTS Include the ENTIRE Civil Code, SEDMhttps://sedm.org/proof-that-publici-juris-includes-the-entire-civil-code/ […]