THE AMERICAN BIRTHRIGHT
                  William Duff 2007

American Jurisprudence carefully describes the Sovereign powers of the Federal and State Governments but fails to clearly tell the whole story.

While it is true that Both the State and Federal Governments possess Sovereign Powers there is a third Sovereign Power holder.  That is you, the posterity, who possess the American Birthright. 

Here is how that works:  In order to possess Sovereignty you must also possess PROPERTY over which you alone have sole dominion.  Without sole dominion over some thing there can be no Sovereignty.  

Respecting the Federal Sovereignty; its domain is as granted to it by the collective "We the People" written in the Constitution for the United States of America.  This creating a FEDERAL DOMAIN over which the Federal Government, through its democratic processes, wields dominion.

Respecting State Sovereignty; its domain runs concurrent with the domain of the collective "We the People", said else wise; those powers granted to the collective, “We the People”, by the individual members thereof, which it, the collective, necessarily cedes to it’s Agent; the State Governments, through it’s democratic processes, wields dominion.

Respecting Individual Sovereignty, yours and mine; All that is not granted to the Federal Government nor to We the People (the collective and its agent the State) makes up this domain over which the individual wields his sole authority or dominion.

Since individual Sovereignty is the least written about in American Jurisprudence over the past 100 + years, and since the object of this website is to describe, with specificity, the nature and scope of the individual’s domain, that we may be able to easily recognize intrusions by the other dominions, let us confine our attention to determining that question.

What did the individual people retain for themselves when entering into this society?

"....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."  Declaration of Independence [Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  Preamble to The Constitution of the United States of America

If one recognizes that "the pursuit of happiness" as written in the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson is a reference to property, the right to own property, it must become clear to the least among us that the individual upon entering this society, by declaration through his agents, has retained his life, his liberty, and his property over which only he will have sole dominion for he has not ceded those things to either the Collective, the Fed or the State.  He has but given them the duty to secure those things.

NOW THAT WAS SIMPLE - WASN'T IT?  Now we understand the nature of our individual domain.  It is our Life, our Liberty and our Property!!  These are the boundaries of our domain.  Our dominion over that domain is unalienable and therefore the attribute of Sovereignty attaches.

In comprehension of the individuals’ dominion, Jefferson defines it’s boundaries as contrasted to those of the governments:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

Thomas Jefferson's belief, expressed in the Notes on Virginia 1782, were made the Supreme law of the land when incorporated into the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and as such was written into every State constitution to mean the very same thing;

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What then is an unreasonable search?  Jefferson already told us what that was:  "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.  There it is.  Searches and seizures not supported by injuries to others are unreasonable.  No harm = No reasonable search or seizure.

"Probable cause" goes even further than Jefferson did.  There must be an INTENTIONAL ACT that causes harm before the State or Fed can initiate a search or seizure reasonably;

Probable cause to arrest
"probable cause to arrest can only exist where criminal activity exists" Allen V City ... 73 F 3d 232 9th Circ

GOVERNMENTS WERE NOT GRANTED A RIGHT TO UNREASONABLY SEARCH OR SEIZE.  STATED ANOTHER WAY; GOVERNMENTS WERE NOT AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EMPOWERED TO HARM ONE OF THE PEOPLE.  AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE COMMITS HARM.  IT DIMINISHES YOUR DOMINION OVER YOUR DOMAIN (INTERFERES WITH YOUR RIGHT OF ACTION), not to speak of trespass, battery and various other crimes associated with the action.

The fourth amendment is an incredible piece of work.  Not only does it comprehend the dominion of the individual over their own domain, that being The right of the people over that domain, it recognizes the scope of that domain; "persons, houses, papers, and effects", and denies government the power to unreasonably search or seize except as "to such acts only as are injurious to others.", and the probable cause clause further limits governments to only those acts that are injurious to others and that carry with them the intent to injure others.  An unreasonable search or seizure would be injurious and the governments are bound by the same social compact the rest of us are.  They too can not lawfully harm another. That social compact is represented here nicely;

..."Certain rights, therefore, such as the rights of due process and the right to vote, are contractual. They have no meaning in a state of nature, only within the context of a civil society".....  ..."While a constitution prescribes the legal rights of individuals and the powers of government, the social contract also includes certain duties which members assume upon entry. Those duties include the duty to avoid infringing on the rights of other members, to obey just laws, to comply with and help enforce just contracts, to serve on juries, and to defend the community"  The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics  Jon Roland. 1994

So when I tell you to watch and comprehend the Philosophy of Liberty I am telling you that the concept of liberty respecting your domain, your property, is essential to your full understanding and ability to protect yourself from the government excesses you are complaining about.  You should take me seriously.

It is thus materially and lawfully accurate that Your own private domain includes all your property which includes:

Your Life; body, mind

Your rights, life liberty and property

Your choice; prerogative

Your real and personal property ( ALL OF IT)

Governments cannot diminish your dominion over these things without harming you.  Governments were not granted the power to harm you.  That can only mean that Governments have NO lawful authority to PROHIBIT OR COMPEL YOUR ACTIONS IN YOUR PRIVATE CAPACITY without first asking and getting your un-coerced voluntary consent because it has NO lawful dominion over your private property existing solely within your own private domain.  The prohibition or compulsion must be harm otherwise.  If the governments actually had a Sovereign authority over your domain there would be no need for a constitution.  We would all be serfs/slaves such as are the English who we fought against to remove that disability.

HOW FAR DOES YOUR & MY DOMAIN REACH?

Your domain is with you always and wherever you go.  When you go upon the public right of way, your domain is in your land and home and extends also to your body and that property you take with you.  But it does not reach so far as to interfere in your neighbor’s domain.  Here is an Illinois Supreme court case that comprehends this fact;

"The municipality, which is a mere trustee of the public, and holds the streets and alleys in trust for that public, cannot deny the right of the public to use the streets and alleys." City of Chicago v. Collins et al., Supreme Court of Illinois. 175 Ill. 445, 51 N.E. 907 (Oct. 24, 1898), 

"The license in the latter-named case is designed to operate upon those who hold themselves out as common carriers, and a license may be exacted from such as a proper exercise of police power; but no reason exists why it should be applied to the owners of private vehicles, used for their individual use exclusively, in their own business, or for their own pleasure, as a means of locomotion." Joyce v. City of East St. Louis, 77 Ill. 156; City of St. Louis v. Grone, 46 Mo. 575 (quoting from Collins)

As you see from Collins, the law comprehends the nature of the individual domain and recognizes the right to go upon the public right of way as being a right of action over which the individual possesses sole dominion.  So long as I harm no one and I am acting solely within my own domain and in my private capacity:

Do I lawfully get to allow my lawn to reach its full potential?  You bet I do.

Do I get to watch the paint disintegrate off my house?  You bet I do.

Do I lawfully get to travel upon the public right of way at 350MPH?  You bet I do.

Do I lawfully get to refuse to take a State License?  You bet I do.

Do I lawfully get to say NO to a mandated income tax?  You bet I do.

Do I lawfully get to injure anyone I please?  NOPE

Do I lawfully get to choose when, where and how I go upon the public right of way?  You bet I do

Do I lawfully get to choose how, when and where my money is spent?  You bet I do.

Do I lawfully get to refuse to be a tax collector for government?  You bet I do.

Do I get to refuse to wear a seat belt or a helmet?  You bet I do.

Note:  Whether or not it is advisable to do some of these things is not relevant here. (There is also a DUTY of taking responsibility for the harm you do which is not covered extensively in this writing)

The government diminishes your dominion over your domain in every instance that it attempts to compel or prohibit or regulate your choice of action and it thereby harms you.  Unlawfully.  Why can such government restraint not be lawful?  Because Governments, all of them, are a product of the collective people and are driven by a majority opinion respecting the actions it takes.  The Majority, who also has no lawful authority to harm you, directs the governmental policy and lawmaking through the voting process and therefore through it's agents/representatives.   Use of Your private property is NOT subject to the majority opinion!  It is subject only to your opinion!  The majority has no more standing to intrude upon your private domain than your neighbor.  The fact that governments ignore this fact only describes an intentional harm upon all those private individuals concerning use of private property it forcefully imposes its will (the presumed will of the majority) on.

GOVERNMENT CANNOT LAWFULLY PROTECT YOU FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR!

YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS THAT DUTY! 

Speaking of your neighbor, some of them are elected to office in the governments.  When entering such an office, they are your agents.  These neighbors, even in the capacity of that office possess NO authority to regulate your actions that exist solely within your own private domain.  If they vote for a bill that has the effect of empowering government to force you to wear a seatbelt or helmet, paint your house, or any other restriction upon the use of your property, they are breaking their oath to faithfully defend the constitutions.  Since there are many such lawless agents holding office these days, it is your duty to ferret them out and cause their replacement or impeachment.  Start screaming a rational message and your neighbors will chime in and scream with you.  Ignore it and do nothing and your neighbors will do nothing with you as well.

WE KNOW GOVERNMENT IS NOT ADHERING TO THESE LIMITATIONS AND COURTS ARE RUBBER STAMPING IT'S ACTIONS.  HOW DO WE COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT TO RESTRICT IT’S ACTIONS TO WITHIN ITS OWN DOMAIN RESPECTING OUR INDIVIDUAL DOMAIN?

Since we cannot harm another - we cannot seek a remedy for harm done us directly with those who harm us. (We cannot shoot the cop at the side of the road)  We are therefore compelled by the nature of the social compact to seek a remedy for harm done us through the instrumentalities created by “We the People” for that purpose.  The Courts.  No matter how badly they seem to be doing their job - we must insist the courts perform as designed.  It is our insistence that will correct the courts and secure our remedies.  We all have a constitutionally protected Right to a remedy for every injury to person, property or character.  The courts are supposed to be fulfilling this mandate - but has obviously lost its way.

Below is a flow chart that describes your nature and the nature of your governments.  Notice that the separate domains do not overlap or extend their power to one another. The only exception being is that the domain of the individual people that have the power to vote in the democratic processes of the other two domains.  Notice also this graph is a simple depiction of the origin and structure of this society as constructed during the framing generation and does not address the more complicated issues of harms, jurisdiction in controversies etc.  That, of course, is a subject for another chapter.

You have just studied the ingenious and simple design for our society.  Were it as simple as that and everyone followed that design this book may well not be necessary.  In any event, this is where our story begins.  We begin with you having fundamental knowledge of the structure of our society and intent of the Framers.  We begin by identifying the single most complained about interaction between government and the individual people, that being individual dominion over life, liberty and property vs. state and federal police power.

In the development of American law, the legislature assumed the statutory power to declare a use previously considered to be "innocent" as "malum prohibitum" ( evil or noxious by virtue of legislative determination, or "nuisance in law.) Through statute and the general authority of the "police," (or "municipal powers,") the legislature clarified and enlarged the types of property use that would constitute a "public nuisance." Such would include individual private actions, occupations and land uses that caused (or threatened to cause) a real and substantial injury to the person, property, property ownership, or equal rights of others as the public-at-large. These nuisances were statutorily identified and prohibited or regulated - most commonly in the context of zoning or their occurrence relative to a particular locality.

The traditional view of the boundaries of the police powers and their applicability to statutory declarations of "nuisance in law" are summarized in the opinion of District Court Judge Martin in the case of the Tufts v. Ziebold et al., cited in Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887.) [Note: Although the Martin decision was overruled in Mugler, the Supreme Court's decision was, based upon (1) lack of a legitimate federal question; and (2) the determination that the private and commercial manufacture of liquor was in the nature of a legitimate "nuisance per se" under the common law, not a "nuisance in law" and, as such, a mere revocable privilege subject to permit. The concepts voiced by Martin were not negated, only their relevancy in the particular case.]

J. MARTIN..."In the implied compact between the state and the citizen, certain rights are reserved by the latter, with which the state cannot interfere. These are guarantied by the federal and state constitutions in the provisions which protect 'life, liberty, and property.' Under the doctrines of the Commune, the state has the right to control the tastes, appetites, and habits of the citizen. But under our form of government, the state does not attempt to control the citizen except as to his conduct to others. John Stuart Mill on 'Liberty,' 145, 146; 2 Kent, Comm. 1; 1 Cooley, Bl. 122, 123; Munn v. People of Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, citing Thorpe v. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 143..."

"If the legislature can prescribe what a man shall or shall not manufacture, ignoring the question of whether he intends to dispose of it to others, or whether its manufacture is dangerous in the process of manufacturing to the lives or property of others, then the same power can prescribe the tastes, habits, and expenditure of every citizen. The right of the state to prohibit unwholesome trades, etc., is based on the general principle that every person ought to so use his own as not to injure his neighbors. This is the police power; and it is much easier to perceive and realize the existence and sources of it than to mark its boundaries. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Union Co. v. Landing Co., 111 U.S. 588, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 652, (opinions of Justices Bradley and Field;) Com. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 84. But broad and comprehensive as is this power, it cannot extend to the individual tastes and habits of the citizen. License Cases, 5 How. 583. Whatever may be the injurious results from the use of beer, it will not be contended that there is anything in the process of manufacturing it, which endangers the lives or property of others. Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371. There can be no doubt but that 'citizens of the United States' and 'citizens of the states' have the natural right to manufacture beer for individual use..." To this right is added the right, secured by the other clause of the fourteenth amendment, 'nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.'

"The general laws governing society' guaranty the right to manufacture beer; and until the citizen attempts to sell or barter, he cannot be punished. If all that is charged in this indictment be proved, no offense is shown to have been committed under the laws of any free people. Under the power to regulate, the state cannot deprive the citizen of the lawful use of his property, if it does not injuriously affect or endanger others. Lake View v. Cemetery Co., 70 Ill. 191. Nor can it, in the exercise of the police power, enact laws that are unnecessary, and that will be oppressive to the citizen. Railway Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Ill. 37-40; Tenement-House Cigar Cases, 98 N. Y. 98; People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 377; Intoxicating Liquor Cases, 25 Kan. 765, (opinion of Judge BREWER;) Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 135; Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 477; Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill, 146, (per Bronson, J.;) Goshen v. Stonington, 4 Conn. 225, (per HOSMER, J.)"

..."A legislative enactment cannot make that a nuisance which is not such in fact. To make such a determination is a judicial function. Rights of property cannot be so arbitrarily destroyed or injured. Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497, 504, 505; Hutton v. City of Comden,, 39 N. J. Law, 122, 129, 130; Cooley, Const. Lim. (5th Ed.) 110, and notes, 446; Lowry v. Rainwater, 70 Mo. 152; Jeck v. Anderson, 57 Cal. 251. Such a legislative determination would also be void, because, where the fact of injury to public health or morals did not exist, as here, it would be a violation of the absolute right of the citizen to follow such pursuit as he sees fit, provided it be not in fact 'injurious to the community.' People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 386, 2 N. E. Rep. 29, and cases cited. Such legislation is unconstitutional. Quintini v. City of Bar St. Louis, 1 South. Rep. 625, 628."

"The police power cannot go beyond the limit of what is necessary and reasonable for guarding against the evil which injures or threatens the public welfare in the given case, and the legislature, under the guise of that power, cannot strike down innocent occupations and destroy private property, The destruction of which is not reasonably necessary to accomplish the needed reform And this, too, although the legislature is the judge in each case of the extent to which the evil is to be regulated or prohibited. Where the occupation is in itself immoral, there can be no question as to the right of the legislature. 2 Kent, Comm. 340. Nor is it denied that every one holds his property subject to the proper exercise of the police power. Dill. Mun. Corp. 136; Tied. Lim. Police Power, 122, 122a; Com. v. Tewksbury, 11 Metc. 55. Nor that the legislature can destroy vested rights in the proper exercise of this power. Coates v. Mayor of New York, 7 Cow. 585. But the unqualified statement that when the legislature has exercised its right of judging, by the enactment of a prohibition, all other departments of the government are bound by the decision, which no court has a right to review, (Bish. St. Cr. 995,) cannot be true. The legislative power cannot authorize manifest injustice by positive enactment or take away security for personal liberty or private property, for the protection whereof government was established. Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386. The state cannot deprive the citizen of the lawful use of his property if it does not injuriously affect others. Lake View v. Cemetery Co., 70 Ill. 191. The state cannot enact laws, not necessary to the preservation of the health and safety of the community, that will be oppressive and burdensome to the citizen. Railway Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Ill. 37. The constitutional guaranty of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is not limited by the temporary caprice of a present majority and It can be limited only by the absolute necessities of the public. Intoxicating Liquor Cases, (BREWER, J.,) 25 Kan. 765; Tenement-House Cigar Case, 98 N. Y. 98; Cooley, Const. Lim. (5th Ed.) 110, 445, 446. No proposition is more firmly established than that the citizen has the right to adopt and follow such lawful and industrial pursuit, not injurious to the community, as he may see fit. People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 377, 386, 2 N. E. Rep. 29. The mere existence of a brewery in operation, or of beer therein in vats, or packages not intended for consumption in the state is not in any way detrimental to the safety, health, or morals of the people of Kansas; Nor can it be said that there is anything immoral in the business of brewing, or in beer itself, as in gambling or lotteries. Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814."  (Author unknown).

Here you see in the foregoing that the governments have assumed a general welfare authority that reaches into the individual’s domain without his/her consent using the plausible but unlawful excuse that potential harms are sufficient to restrain the individual in its use and disposal of its property interests.  It should not be missed on anyone that has read this writing from the beginning that there can be no overlapping of dominion between the three sovereign power holders (the federal & state governments AND the people) without consent.     I think Judge Martin (Tufts v. Ziebold et al.,) was trying to impart that very fact.  Nevertheless, once the General Welfare was asserted by the state and fed it was a small matter to expand that idea to include safety, health and morals.  By this time government had its police power tentacles into every facet of the individual peoples life such as; Licensing, zoning, and unending enactments of compelled performance and prohibition laws.  Today we the people need a state permission to do almost anything and everything.

Let’s review.  You are free to do anything you choose to do so long as you harm no one.  This is not my opinion; it is the law of this land.  The Federal and State Constitutions secure it to you.  Some unassailable evidence of this fact have been shown in the previous pages.  Your agents, those being the vast majority of office holders at all levels of government in America obviously do not agree.  That fact must be apparent as you look around you.  That fact became obvious to me because for the past 20 years I have been asking each with whom I came into contact to help correct this assault on private property rights. For my effort and without exception I found no one that was willing to put private property rights before The States General Welfare and police powers.    While it is true each wanted to help in the beginning - but when it was proven to them that the general welfare powers of the state did not lawfully support its assault on private property - each disengaged and refused to communicate with me further. I was silenced.  Obviously, there is a controversy.  I will be visiting that very controversy in the coming chapters.

For those of you that have been drawn into the State and local courts over failure to observe the compelled performance and prohibition laws being enacted and enforced by the State legislatures and supported by your neighbors from hell, you will recognize that the judge always has what appears to be in possession of sole discretion in deciding the matter.  If you resist his authority, by claiming your actions are secured rights of action, his opinion quickly becomes clearer.  Conversely, I have claimed if not declared that here in America, when the subject matter originates in the private domain of the individual American and when it concerns only that individual and the State, as long as there is no injury associated, the State judge can have no discretion to decide the matter unless it is ceded by the individual with voluntary, un-coerced consent.    How many of you were courteously asked to give your consent before the judge acted?  The chapter on the Common Law will support my position and I am confident you will forever challenge that overbearing State judge who would steal, by coercion, your property in your Right to decide upon the use and disposal of your private property which is otherwise known in the legal community as the “Subject Matter”.  Remember, from prior pages subject matter jurisdiction is dependent upon the sovereign authority over the subject matter.   Who has the Right to decide?  The owner of the right is the only rightful and lawful judge.   Respecting the peoples business the state possesses that jurisdiction only as granted to it by the collective people.  Respecting your life, liberty and property; only you possess that jurisdiction because your business is not the same as the peoples’ business.  The State domain is restricted to the peoples’ business - which is granted to it by the collective people.  You have a right to decree who will decide upon all subject matter related to your own private life, liberty and happiness.  Here is your proof: 

"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.

And;

United States and State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant within its own sphere. Redding v Los Angeles (1947) 81 CA2d 888, 185 P2d 430, app dismd 334 US 825, 92 L Ed 1754, 68 S Ct 1338

Even the State codes of California recognize this fundamental truth in my claim, as here:

"It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business....The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." [California Government Code, Section 11120.]

Now we have more evidence in support of my claim that your dominion over your domain is exclusive as stated in “Rodding” above. And as I claimed when I defined the nature of the three distinct and sovereign domains in the American Birthright sections.  Although Rodding only addresses the State and federal sovereignty, that fact does not foreclose the truth that your domain should also have been included.  It makes no sense that a government could be sovereign over its creator.  It also makes no sense that a sovereign people would cede all their sovereignty to the governments it creates where the goal was to preserve freedom. When all the sovereignty of a people is accumulated in one or more individuals you get something other than freedom. That is why the establishing constitutions reserve the rights to life, liberty and property to the individual people (creators). Obviously it is because the people did not cede all their sovereignty to the State.  If that is true then what is reserved must constitute another domain.  If it did not, there can be no Right to ones own Life, Liberty or happiness.  Since even the founding documents recognize and secure these rights. Plus, since the founding fathers made it clearly a fact, it must be so.

Based upon the forgoing, I am going to declare that the claims and facts heretofore having been presented are true and completely accurate. That they represent that portion of the law of this land which secures our freedom as individuals and as a people.  I further declare that every attempt by anyone to diminish the right of the individual to use and dispose of his/her property as he/she sees fit where that use harms no one must be an injury.  And further, that every office holder is duty bound by due process of law to know the law of this land and to observe it rightly.  As such, where an office holder acts or supports acts that interfere with the individual domain, where no harm is comprehended, they are committing a crime with intent to injure and should be treated as such.  The reason, of course, is that there is no excuse not to know the law restraining your harming others.  Where you or your neighbors support that office holder’s criminal actions, you are as guilty of the crime as they are.  And there is the essence of the “neighbor from hell” (hereinafter: nfh).