THE AMERICAN BIRTHRIGHT
                    2007 William Duff

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.  

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 individuals 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 its 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 INJURE ONE OF THE PEOPLE.  AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE COMMITS AN INJURY.  IT DIMINISHES YOUR DOMINION OVER YOUR DOMAIN (INTERFERES WITH YOUR LIBERTY AND RIGHT OF ACTION), not to speak of trespass, battery and various other crimes associated with the act.

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 can not 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 a 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 neighbors 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:

Note:  Whether or not it is advisable to do some of these things is not relevant here. (there is also a dynamic 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 CAN NOT 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 ITS ACTIONS TO WITHIN ITS OWN DOMAIN RESPECTING OUR INDIVIDUAL DOMAIN?

Since we can not harm another we can not seek a remedy for harm done us directly with those who harm us (RETALIATE). (we can not 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 and character.  The courts are supposed to be fulfilling this mandate but has obviously lost its way.

So, how do we, the small and insignificant, show our judiciary back onto the correct path?  first we must understand the basic functions of the judiciary.  the one most important function of the judiciary everywhere is that it must possess JURISDICTION in order to act.What is jurisdiction?  What does it mean?  Jurisdiction is just another way of saying it has authority to decide a controversy.  Jurisdiction is interchangeable with the word Sovereignty.  In order to have the authority to decide you must first have sovereignty over that which is being decided.

Example:  The State has no sovereignty over the federal commerce laws.  only the fed has that sovereignty.  As such, the state has no jurisdiction (standing) to decide a controversy over the federal commerce clause.  

Same limitation applies to the State (State = includes its subdivisions; cities, towns and villages) when the controversy comprehends that which is solely within your own private domain (your Life, Liberty and Property).  For instance:  you own a home, it needs paint and the porch steps are broken down.  The State has no Jurisdiction to decide when or how that problem will be rectified, or if it will be.  You are the Sovereign.  You have sole dominion over that subject matter.  Same for a trespass on your property.  You have the sovereign power to charge the offense civilly, and in seeking a remedy for that trespass to prosecute it and to decide what the injury is.  That is no different than the state writing a law that residents must have a driver license to drive on the public right of way.  When a resident fails to get the driver license the state authorized police charge that resident with failing to have a driver license while on the public right of way, the state authorized prosecutor brings the charge in court and prosecutes it before a state authorized judge who decides the facts.

That is no different than you filing an action in the county circuit court to seek a remedy for a trespass on your property, prosecuting it as the plaintiff and deciding the matter as the tribunal.  This being the structure of a court of record proceeding according to the course of the common law.  You should learn more about this common law because it is what preserves individual rights.  You can learn about it at www.1215.org or you can follow my duff v frazier case here on the main page.

In Duff v Frazier et al,  i filed an action for trespass against a police officer that trespassed on my property.  The court is extremely agitated by the common law action i brought because by the nature of the common law action, the judge sitting on the bench is stripped of his authority to decide the case or to use his discretion respecting any ruling or order that is issued.  Only the tribunal, which is a legal fiction created by the Sovereign and his complaint can issue orders or decisions.  Contemporary American courts are not used to a sovereign suing in what they think are their courts according to the course of the common law since the legal community has tried feverishly to remove the common law from America.  The process provides some very interesting incites.  But first and foremost, you can see the common law structure is proceeding exactly the same as the State does in the example above.   hmmmm curious the judges don't like us doing that.  What is important is that the sovereign makes the law.  The state is doing that respecting its jurisdiction/domain and you can do it respecting your jurisdiction / domain........ it will be a fight, but what isn't.

 

You begin that fight when you study and apply the process existing for the "court of record proceeding according to the course of the common law".  Start with www.1215.org use the law notes to learn the fundamentals then read the examples.

What you must always keep in mind is that your Right of action is your property protected by the constitutions and  Miranda vs. Arizona (among many other cases) points out the principle of law that there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate a right secured by the constitution. (those rights secured are your Life, Liberty and property).  this can only mean;  over your property, only you can decide it use or disposal.  This is an exclusivity that trumps government regulation respecting your right of action.  When government or anyone attempts to usurp that exclusivity your property has been trespassed and you have every right to seek a remedy therefrom.  since you possess exclusivity over the subject matter (your property) only you can decide the matter.  that is why the court of record proceeding according to the course of the common law makes sense...... the judge has no standing or jurisdiction to decide that matter.........   that authority is given to the tribunal which is separate from the judge/magistrate.  The magistrate is relegated to the position he/she should have in a free society...... to ministerial duties only.

 

wdd