(Reader: Doug Duff) Jurisdiction Regarding Confiscated Iranian Ship

Reader Post | By Doug Duff

JURISDICTION, It’s a matter of Personification, Confiscation, and Forfeiture.

How current is this diatribe? Today is Friday, January 12, 2024. On January 11, 2024, four to five members of the Iranian Navy boarded and took control of the Marshall Islands-flagged, United States-controlled & Greek-operated civilian oil tanker MV St Nikolas. The course of the oil tanker was altered towards the coast of Iran after the capture. (Copied from a news update.)

I cannot address the issues of “Right or Wrong” or “Good or Bad” as I’m not qualified to declare any criteria. The word on the news is that the UNITED STATES confiscated the ship, SUEZ RAJAN from Iran, along with its load of oil, about one year ago. Apparently, the UNITED STATES renamed the ship as the MV St. Nikolas and “flagged” it as being from the Marshall Islands.

YOUR JOB is to judge the issues of Right/Wrong and Good/Bad. It’s my job to pull back the curtain and expose such facts as to where the “rubber meets the road,” how this all affects you today.

“They”, the offending party (gubm’t) can do anything they wish to you or your property IF you are under their jurisdiction and authority. They can confiscate (and, bring about forfeiture) to any thing that is a “person”, or is personified with an identifying number or a name (like a ship with a name).

It has been stated in loose and mis-informative documents that once you obtain a Social Security Administration Identification Number (SSN) you loose all Rights of being a citizen. That is not true. First, let me explain that such an identification number is EITHER Issued or it is Assigned, but not both.

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].

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 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.”

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…

Issued vs. Assigned

26 CFR Sec. 301.6109-1 – Identifying numbers.
(g) Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons –
General rule –
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?” Yes, but – – what does that have to do with personification, confiscation, and forfeiture? Good question. But, you’re not going to like the answer.

If you are “Licensed” you are under their jurisdiction. If you are NOT licensed, what can they do to you? They’ll warn you and tell you to get a license. Don’t rely on this statement to keep you out of trouble. I don’t give legal advice, but if you wish to read what they say about not being licensed, there’s lots of proof.

“It is impossible to prove jurisdiction exists absent a substantial nexus with the state, such as voluntary subscription to license.   All jurisdictional facts supporting claim that supposed jurisdiction exists must appear on the record of the court.”   Pipe Line v Marathon. 102 S. Ct. 3858 quoting Crowell v Benson 883 US 22; And, Claimant has no record or evidence that Claimant is a “Licensee”, as per; “Where a person is not at the time a licensee, neither the agency, nor any official has any jurisdiction of said person to consider or make any order. One ground as to want of jurisdiction was, accused was not a licensee and it was not claimed that he was.”   0’Nei1 v Dept Prof. & Vocations   7 CA 2d 398; Eiseman v Daugherty 6 CA 783.

______________________________________________________

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.
______________________________________________________

Operation Disclosure is an independent media platform dedicated to exploring global geopolitics and alternative perspectives. Our mission is to provide a central hub for diverse viewpoints on world events, including independent research into exopolitics, aerial phenomena (UAP), and the historical origins of humanity. We believe in providing a platform for information that encourages deeper inquiry into the world around us.

Disclaimer: The content on Operation Disclosure—including articles, videos, and images—is contributed by our readers or curated for informational and educational interest. Views, opinions, and claims expressed in these posts belong solely to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Operation Disclosure. We do not guarantee the absolute accuracy or completeness of this content; therefore, we encourage all readers to engage with the material with a spirit of personal inquiry and discernment.

Copyright © Operation Disclosure Official