(Reader: Doug Duff) Is your Identity Issued or Assigned

Reader Post | By Doug Duff

IS YOUR “IDENTITY” ISSUED OR ASSIGNED

A comprehensive study to determine proper “Identity.”

A county is a “person” in a legal sense, Lancaster Co. v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 52 N.W. 711; but a sovereign is not; In re Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, 11 Am.Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox 94 U.S. 315, 24 L.Ed. 192 …. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 1300

A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a “natural person.” Pollock, First Book of Jurispr. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. II. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, p 1300 [Note: in this paragraph, we are talking about a “person”, not one of the People.]

The Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States.*1 The preamble contemplates the body of electors composing the states, the terms “people” and “citizens” being synonymous. Negroes, whether free or slaves, were not included in the term “people of the United States at that time.*2 *1 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 [1819]. See also Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 470 [1793]; Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 93 [1795]; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 324 [1816]; Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 247 [1833]. *2 Scott v. Sandford, 19 How 393, 404 [1857].

“The words “sovereign state” are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is our appropriate phrase when applied to an absolute despotism. The idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and foundation of civil liberty and the rights of property”. Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501.

cab·a·lis·tic (k²b”…-l¹s“t¹k) adj. 1. Having a secret or hidden meaning; occult: cabalistic symbols engraved in stone. 2. Of or relating to the cabala.

The concept of sovereignty stands on its own. The sources shown below may help you to see that it is a respected and valid concept.

“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

“The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.” American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.

“‘Sovereignty’ means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree.” Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903.

RESERVATION OF SOVEREIGNTY: “[15] (b) Even if the Tribe’s power to tax were derived solely from its power to exclude non-Indians from the reservation, the Tribe has the authority to impose the severance tax. Non-Indians who lawfully enter tribal lands remain subject to a tribe’s power to exclude them, which power includes the lesser power to tax or place other conditions on the non-Indian’s conduct or continued presence on the reservation. The Tribe’s role as commercial partner with petitioners should not be confused with its role as sovereign. It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head. MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148. (Bold emphasis added here)

[The above paragraph was included to expressly solidify the concept and truth that a Sovereign, any Sovereign, may do as he so chooses as long as he does not harm another Sovereign in the process, especially, if he has reserved his Rights. Remember, no corporation is Sovereign.]

One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for other purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for political purposes.  U.S.–The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322 –Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208 Md.–Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82 Mass.–Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531 R.I.–Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com’rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212

So, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as such he is entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property, even though he is not vested with the suffrage or other political rights. Mass.–Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568

US Supreme Court in Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9,20:

“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative.”

The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825):

“The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign … It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound.”

Even the very definition of “Liberty” means you cannot be regulated. Study the terms “Liberty” and “Liberties” in the Law Dictionary. Another Example: the US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399: The term Liberty “… denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience, the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary …”

Conclusion: the federalists have been given exclusive jurisdiction over Washington DC. There are no sovereign rights in Washington DC.

• Ephesians 4:14-15 (KJV) “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:“

• Colossians 2:20 (KJV) “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, … “

14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122: “… the term `citizen’ in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject’ in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government.”

(Read that again. Pay attention. CITIZENS IN THE U.S. ARE SUBJECTS EVER SINCE THE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT. What part don’t you understand?)

125 Fed 322, 325: “The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government.”

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794: “The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution“

Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520: “… the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause” [of the fourteenth amendment]

That’s right! The US Supreme Court says that Fourteenth Amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

STATE CITIZENSHIP

State Citizens have their same rights in all the states because your Federal Constitution in Article 4, Section 2 guarantees that “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

The Supreme Court in Colgate v. Harvey 296 US 404, 429 clarified that rights of state citizenship are in contradistinction to the rights of US citizenship: “The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other …”

Colgate v. Harvey then concluded that the right to trial by jury and the right to bear arms are not guaranteed to 14th Amendment citizens.

Merely reciting which kind of citizen you are, is admissible by anyone taking you to federal court. Be careful about checking a box on a form claiming US citizenship. Example: The US Supreme Court in Urtetiqui v. D’Arcy 34 US 692: “Where plaintiff, suing in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, alleges that he is a citizen of Maryland, an affidavit signed by him in a suit brought in a state court, reciting that he was not a citizen of the United States, thereby procuring a removal of the case to the federal court, is admissible on defendant’s behalf.”

Your U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2 guarantees “privileges and immunities” to Citizens of each state. K Tashiro v. Jordan 256 P 545, was later affirmed by US Supreme Court in 278 US 123: “There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State“

That’s correct! If you claim to be a US citizen, you are claiming that you are not entitled to the privileges and immunities of a State Citizen (a right guaranteed by Article 4, Section 2). You are not protected by your U.S. Constitution. You have no rights. Like Esau, you sold your birthright.

Hebrews 12:16: See to it that no one is profane, like Esau, who flippantly sold his birthright.

If you are a citizen, it is because you have voluntarily submitted to the dominion of your political community, whether you like it or not. No matter how evil.

US Supreme Court in the 1875 case U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542: “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 …. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”

A Christian, however, would not consent to be governed. He already has a King. He already has a citizenship. Philippians 3:20 (NIV): “But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,”

United States v. 24 Federal Cases 829,830 (1873): “The rights of Citizens of the States, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.”

Notice the terminology “enter into society” in the 1798 U.S. Supreme Court case Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386:

“The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of the legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit …”

And notice the same terminology in Andrew Jackson’s second inauguration speech March 4, 1833: “Constantly bearing in mind that entering into society individuals must give up a share of liberty …”

Again notice that citizens have given up a share of liberty, whereas non-citizens keep their rights.

Have you entered into a society that uses a vote to determine the morality of abortion, sodomy, divorce, usury, p---------y, and property seizure? You paid your fair share for these abominations. Jesus told us not to have dominion over others. Christians would

• depart from iniquity (2nd Tim 2:19) and
• come out from among them and be ye separate (2nd Cor 6:17), and
• be not partakers (Rev 18:4) and
• seek citizenship in heaven (Phil 3:20, Eph 2:19, Heb 11:16, etc),
• “And be not conformed to this world …” Romans 12:2, and
• rather be wronged 1st Cor 6:7.

None of these are possible for someone who is trying, with a vote (or a gun*), to force perverted values on others, or to exercise dominion, or to force others to provide for them.

*(Aside: Ballot and bullet and bully are etymologically the same word. They all refer to rock throwing. Examples: President Lincoln 8/26/1863 said “Among free men there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet.” Another example: The apostle Paul admits that before he was converted he stoned to death the saints. He confesses in Acts 26:10 “When they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.”)

State governments were originally founded on Biblical principles. Here in these United States, or any other Republic, the citizens are the higher power of Romans 13:1. The civil servants who daily blaspheme God are not the higher powers ordained of God. They are a terror to good works. Romans 13:1 (KJV): “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Romans 13:3 (KJV) “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” The same principles that require you to obey lawful government require you to punish tyrants.

Here are Citizenship issues for the advance student who wants to do some research:

I’ve found coincidences that seem related to the 14th Amendment.

First, The 14th Amendment says that all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US, and Social Security Act, Section 205(c)(2)(b)(i) lists indigent children and immigrants as the only ones who can qualify for Social Security Numbers. Note that the words “including children” may be construed to exclude all non-children. For the advanced student: try to find proof that the word “children” in this section of the Social Security Act refers only to government wards.

Second, there are ASSIGNED Social Security Numbers and ISSUED Social Security Numbers. Compare Social Security Act, Section 205(c)(2) with 20 CFR 422.103 through .104, and 26 CFR 31.6011(b) and (c).

Assigned Social Security Numbers	Issued Social Security Numbers
Are always called Account Numbers	Are never called Account Numbers
Are not for children (in neither SS Act nor SS regulations)	Are for children (SS Act only)
	Are not for children (regulations only)

Third, Internal Revenue Code, Section 6109(d), (I’ve added the emphasis): “The SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBER ISSUED to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.”

Search as much as you want, but you won’t find an issued account number. Yet, this is what your tax law wants. Every April 15th, you swear a perjury oath to the federal god that you have a number that does not exist.

There is one last topic to consider. The word “enumerated” as used in the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration has stated on their web site; “The process of issuing Social Security numbers is called “enumeration,” and over the years it has been one of the most interesting topics involving Social Security.”

Now, here is the legal definition of ENUMERATED: The term is often used in law as equivalent to “mentioned specifically,” “designated” or “expressly named or granted;” as in speaking of enumerated government powers, ITEMS OF PROPERTY, or articles in a tariff schedule…

UCC §1-206. Presumptions.

Whenever [the Uniform Commercial Code] creates a “presumption” with respect to a fact, or provides that a fact is “presumed,” the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact unless and until evidence is introduced that supports a finding of its nonexistence.

Issued vs. Assigned

26 CFR Sec. 301.6109-1 – Identifying numbers.

(g) Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons –

(1)   General rule –

(i) Social security number. A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual. A person may establish a different status for the number by providing proof of foreign status with the Internal Revenue Service under such procedures as the Internal Revenue Service shall prescribe, including the use of a form as the Internal Revenue Service may specify. Upon accepting an individual as a #nonresident alien individual, the Internal Revenue Service will #assign this #status to the individual’s social security number.

Notice the difference between “issued” and “assigned?”

______________________________________________________

Contact Author

If you wish to contact the author of this article. Please email us at [voyagesoflight@gmail.com]. Availability of author’s contact information depends on if said article was user submitted or reposted.
______________________________________________________

Guest Posting

If you wish to write and/or publish an article on Operation Disclosure all you need to do is send your entry to [voyagesoflight@gmail.com] applying these following rules.

The subject of your email entry should be: “Entry Post | (Title of your post) | Operation Disclosure”

– Must be in text format
– Proper Grammar
– No foul language
– Your signature/name/username at the top
______________________________________________________

Newsletter

If you wish to receive the daily Operation Disclosure Newsletter, you can subscribe via the PayPal “Subscribe” button located at the bottom.
______________________________________________________

Our mission at Operation Disclosure is to get you up-to-date on the latest conspiracies and geopolitics. We also aim to provide raw unvetted information about world events from various sources and user submitted research on topics such as exopolitics, extraterrestrial and UFO/UAP sightings, secret space programs, and the lost or ancient origins and history of humanity.

Disclaimer: All articles, videos, and images posted on Operation Disclosure were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes. All statements, claims, views, and opinions that appear on this site are always presented as unverified and should be discerned by the reader. We do not endorse any opinions expressed on this website and we do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content posted on this website.

Copyright © Operation Disclosure