The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand
Introduction to Changing Jurisdiction, Third Edition
Part 3
Click here to read Part 2 of this Jurisdictional Information
Click here to read part 4 of this Jurisdictional Information
Understanding “Nation” and “State”
NATION — means people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jurial society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty;
NATIONAL — Derived from being born within a “nation” therefore having nation-ality or nationality.
STATE — The existing condition or position of a person or thing (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th Ed.)
State: “government. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community…” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)
STATE — condition of persons. If we inquire into its origin, it will be found to come from the Latin status, which is derived from…statio, which signifies the place where a person is located, state, to fulfill the obligations which are imposed upon him (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)
STATUS — means “in relation to another” The legal relation of individual to the rest of the community; (Referenced In-by-their Duryea v. Duryea, 46 Idaho 512, 269 P. 987, 988)
It also means estate, because it signifies the condition or circumstances in which one stands with regard to his property. In the Year Books, it was used in this sense; (Referenced In-by-their Year Books, 2 Poll. & Maitl. Hist, E.L. 11)
So, a state is much more abstract than a nation or a country. The state has nothing whatsoever to do with the nation. One is a geographical location, the other is a political affiliation of a group of people:
Emergence of Social Contracting
“The modern idea of a constitution began to emerge after the Reformation, particularly in the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who developed the notion of the social contract. In the social-contract view, a people agree among themselves to give up a portion of the absolute freedom of the pre-social “state of nature” in return for the security that an acknowledged government can provide. It was John Locke’s work…that influenced the late 18th century authors of the American Declaration of Independence, the US constitution, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.” (Encyclopedia Britannia, 2002)
Social Contracting Formalized in a Constitution
The State comes into being when a group of people agree to be bound by a social contract formalized in a constitution:
CONSTITUTION — “government. The fundamental law of the state…” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)
STATUTE — “The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed in the constitution. 2. this word is used in contradistinction to the common law.” Ibid
From this we can see that a constitution has nothing to do with the Nation, but rather is peculiar to the state.Nations have been around since ancient times, but the idea of the State, and its organizational document, a constitution, is a much more recent invention.
A contract gives much more flexibility than Elohim’s Laws as it only requires a mutual agreement. So statutes can be anything the members of the State want. The concept of a NATION-STATE may be one of the greatest illusions ever foisted upon mankind. In the modern world, political States have been organized so that they are limited to the geographic boundaries defined by nations. Unsuspecting people believe “nation” and “state” are one-in-the-same thing. The social-contract view provides a model whereby men had the freedom to change “laws” to suit their whims. All that was required to do this was to be organized politically as a “State”. Today, most nations have a mirror State operating within it that goes by the SAME NAME! One is geographical, one is federal/corporation!
Because of a Social Contract formalized into a constitution, statutes are much more flexible than Elohim’s Law would ever allow. A contract only requires “mutual agreement”, so the statutes can be anything the members of a particular State wants, and can be changed at any time. States and statutes are relative (free-floating), subject only to the relation to others
The social-contract view provided a model whereby men had the liberty to change “laws” to suit their wishes. All they had to do was organize politically as a “State”. Statutes can never change what is fixed (law), so while Caesar may disagree with Elohim, he actually lacks the standing to place his opinion above Elohim’s. Through statute Caesar can make what is lawful illegal or make unlawful activities legal. But for this to work, Caesar must convince YOU that it is more important to do what is legal rather than was is lawful.
Today a nation such as America will also have a mirror State operating “within” using the same boundaries as the nation. Actually the Jurisdiction of the sea (federal/corporation) “overlaps” onto the land encroaching on to the land jurisdiction. For example:
This encroachment is called in-land piracy
The Things of Elohim are Real – They were put in trust for man to take care of
Land — Common-law substance
Treaties — Supreme Law of the Land
Nation — North America, a piece of land geographical
Lawful Man: A People — with an appellation without numbers; A bondman to the only Begotten; Owned by Elohim
Elohim’s Law: Fixed; Lawful; common-law modeled Elohim’s Law
Determined by LAW: Are you doing good or evil?
The things of Caesar are Legal Fictions — They only exist on paper
Nation-State — Federal — “United States” Commercial — “UNITED STATES”
Legal Persons — Federal “Natural Person”
Corporation — “Artificial Person”
A citizen ALL CAPS NAME with birth date. Owned (numbered) and controlled by the Nation-State unless commercially redeemed
Determined by Status: Are you under Contract? Or are you free?
Law – NONE: Social Contract
Federal Statutes; Codes; Rules and regulations of a constitution; legal; based on the whims of a man
Corporation — Legal is the Lawful System of Man (Public Policy)
One can tell by the title of Departments whether they are “federal” or “Corporate”
Federal
- The Constitution for the United States;
- United States Treasury
- United States Treasurer — Marilynn Malerba (2024)
Corporate
- THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
- THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES
- UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY — Janet Yellen (2024)
What one Creates, one Controls
“What one creates, one controls” is a maxim reflecting Elohim’s truth. If a man builds a shed or a lady bakes a cake, it is theirs unless they give it away. However, even though Elohim created us and then redeemed us, He lets us voluntarily join His kingdom
Each one of us was born within a “nation” having “nation-ality” (nationality). However, the nation didn’t create us, so it only has the authority to control us to the extent one breaks Elohim’s laws. As long as one behaves lawfully, the government has little, if any, role to play in our lives:
“For rulers that are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of Yahuah to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of Yahuah, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Romans 13:3, 4
For the State to have control over something, it must create it. They began creating a fictitious identity that mirrored the living baby of a nativity:
True: john quincy adams — Nativity’s living baby
Mirror: John Quincy Adams — Land Vessel Birthed
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS — Commercial Vessel birthed
In the early 1900’s the State began claiming legal title to living man by creating a mirror image “natural person” of the true baby giving it the exact same name as the living-man baby. The “artificial person” was created to be a STATE commercial vessel on the “sea of commerce”. As creator of these “persons” they hold legal title to them giving the parents equitable title of the vessel. Unknowingly, the parents believe the birth certificate to be the official papers documenting the nativity of their offspring. The State is the trustee of these “persons” and the living man the beneficiary, but unless declared otherwise, the State presumes to be the beneficiary because the living man DOES NOT make a distinction between the real and the mirror image by making a Declaration of Status with the intent of his Political Will published;
With the passage of Obama Care on 03 March 2010, a claim on the equitable title is being made as well. The Nation-State is wanting ALLODIAL TITLE on the vessels they created hoping the living man will stay sleeping and not realize there is a difference between the living man and the legal/commercial vessels that have the same name. Revelation 18:10-13 speaks of this commercial activity perpetrated upon man:
“Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, Saying, Alas, alas, the great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour is thy judgement come. And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, and cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves* (bodies), and souls of men.*
*(#G4983 soma-the body of both men or animals – a dead or living body)
In other words “allodial title” of man
Political Will
Age of Majority — When an Ezrach reaches the age of majority (18-21), he/she should make a Declaration of Status outlining one’s Political Will. However, most people only relate to the age of majority as reaching “drinking age”. This is important because at the age of majority one should be making known their Political Will concerning their citizenship and domicile. The democracy Jurisdiction presumes by our actions that we are an infant needing to be taken care of. One can be 80 years old and still be considered an infant by the State/STATE if one hasn’t declared Age of Majority. If one accepts benefits and privileges and doesn’t declare age of majority, then one is automatically presumed to be in the water/democracy jurisdiction;
Political Association and Questions
WHO IS A POLITICAL PARTY?
In-by-their
O’Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1 (1972) Ruled that equity courts must refrain from interfering in the administration of the internal affairs of a political party. The court will note that any number of people, including a single person, can define a political party
In-by-their
Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin, ex re. Lafollette, 450 U.S. 107, 101 S.Ct. 1010, 67 L.Ed.2d 82 (1981) Ruled that “freedom of political association ‘necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who comprise the association, and to limit the association to those people only”;
From these two references from “international jurisdiction”, one can see that an American is recognized as a “state” with his/her own political status.
We each have our own government:
- Free Will — Executive Branch
- Logic — Legislative Branch
- Conscience — Judicial Branch
Upon one’s free will one may choose a Political Status of using one’s own free will and imagination; minds his/her own business, is self identified, self willed, self politicked, self governed, self determining following Yahuah’s Laws and is competent to handle his/her own affairs and is only judged by his/her Creator through His word
WHAT ARE RECOGNIZED POLITICAL QUESTIONS
CITIZENSHIP — “Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. […] The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign…” (In-their-by Talbot v Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)
This statement bears out in than you will learn in upcoming pages that Land Jurisdiction only allows for singular citizenship. Therefore, when a believer has been adopted into the kingdom of Heaven, he/she is a citizen of that kingdom
“CITIZEN—Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protections of their individual as well as collective rights.”… (In-by-their Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.)
“SUBJECT — One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws…Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. This term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.” Ibid
“…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.” (In-by-their State v. Manuel, 122 N.C. 122);
“Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power.” (In-by-their City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d982, 986, 52 Ariz. I)
Domicile is also a Political Question
“DOMICILE — A person’s legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning” (In-by-their Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.)
“INHABITANT” — One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there” Ibid
“RESIDENCE” — Place where one actually lives… Residence implies something more than physical presence and something less than domicile. The terms ‘resident’ and ‘residence’ have no precise legal meaning. … [One can have many residences but only one domicile]” Ibid
“This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration.” (In-by-their Vatt. Law Nat. pp. 92, 93 Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893))
“Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a bade of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to control, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously enforced, there are striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage, which, under every modification of government must be paid to the inherent rights of man… The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a previous sovereign…” (In-by-their Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)
In statutory law, an inhabitant has a domicile which is defined as a “legal home”. A “legal residence” is not a “legal home”. In fact one can have many residences, but only one domicile. Did someone ever ask you if you were a non resident inhabitant? I doubt it. So you must decide if you are a citizen with residency or an inhabitant with a domicile
From the above definitions, one can see that being an inhabitant with a domicile is better than being a citizen with a residency. Some people make a declaration that they are domiciled “without” the United States (federal) in the “union united States of America” where “united” is an adjective. They identify as an “American State Citizen” which is tied to the land having un-alienable natural liberties
In the past we declared that we were private state citizens “without” the United States citizenship as “foreign” nationals. From a closer look at the intertwining of “terms” we are deleting any wording having to do with “citizenship”. We are not using “non-citizen National” which will still be “foreign” to the United States/UNITED STATES