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 HARM ONE OF THE PEOPLE.  AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE COMMITS A 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 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 AND TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY EVERY INTRUSION IT CONTEMPLATES 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. (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  obviously has lost its way.

In order that you too can assist the courts back onto the path to securing individual freedoms it is important to know and be ready to assert some simple principles every time you are accosted by these office holding neighbors from hell.  Some such principles, like the 4th and 5th Amendments, are stated above.  Here are some more:

As a right, contractual in nature as secured by the constitutions, you are due "Due Process of law".  In the contemporary legal community due process is understood to be "notice and opportunity to be heard" and its focus is upon the judiciary.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  Due process of the law means the " Due Process of Common Law of this land" as is comprehended by all our constitutions respective of the 4th and 5th amendments and by the articles of the Magna Carta and it applies to the executive and legislative branch office holders as well.  When you recognize that such enactments specifically relate to the common law as it existed prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first in England and further that the Magna Carta was decreed to be the Common Law and therefore was at that time the the law of that land that was brought to America, then you should recognize that the Articles of the Magna Carta that comprehend due process are the supreme law of this land.  As such, your due process rights have not been taught in contemporary America.  here are some of them not widely known or understood.

a.      ARTICLE 45. “We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded to observe it rightly.”

                            i.      MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY:  Officials must be knowledgeable about the law, and willing to apply it rightly and obey it as a condition of their office of trust.

b.      ARTICLE 39: “No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

                            i.      MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY:  One can only be put in jail if a jury puts him there (or if he agrees to be put there). Peers are members of the peerage (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, or baron, in America the “people”).

c.      ARTICLE 38. “No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth put any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.”

                             i.      MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: No government official may be a witness in court. And if he is going to impose his law on another, then he must have the support of non-governmental witnesses (2 or more). Witnesses paid by the government are not considered faithful witnesses.

d.      ARTICLE 34. “Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. “

                           i.      MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY:  "Praecipe" = order to show cause against property. "Rights" are property. A free man (i.e. nobleman) has his own land and people (slaves). The king may not force a nobleman into the king’s court in such a way that the nobleman would be deprived of his own court.  In America, there can be no order or act by an official that would cause a freeman to lose his court where the subject matter originates in his own private domain consisting of his Life, Liberty and Property and secured by the constitution in its “blessings of Liberty” clause.

e.      ARTICLE 40. “To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice. “

                            i.      MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY:  Free justice, without delay. The government will assume the entire cost of prosecution. Defense from that prosecution is included.  This is why the court will appoint free counsel.

 

 USA SUPREME COURT:  “Where rights are secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

                              i.      MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY:  Rights secured by the constitutions are specifically Individual Life, Liberty and Property and there can be NO rule making or legislation that would abrogate them.

2.     FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS VOIDS JURISDICTION:  "The judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void" Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019 as such, Violation of due process vacates jurisdiction over the subject matter’