Safety vs Freedom Part IV
Enumerated Duties and the people vs PEOPLE vs persons vs free persons
Preamble
The following article is to breakdown the enumerated duties and provide definitions so it might sink in what those enumerated duties are and how it affects you; a living and breathing man or woman. This installment is a little more granular, but is very important to understand the contract between the UNITED STATES and the United States. The next installment will cover the next Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the words that impact you.
Again, returning back to the company “analogy” from previous articles: you are a man (or woman) who creates a company. That company gets too bogged down with the magnitude of work and creates another company that reports to the parent company. The new sub-company (UNITED STATES) does not dictate to the man who created either company unless you diminish yourself to an entity within the organization; similar to George Washington as President of the Continental Congress in Convention (GEORGE WASHINGTON) and also President of the new Congress assembled (GEORGE WASHINGTON). The parent company (United States) allows certain things (i.e. taxes) to be collected by the sub-company (UNITED STATES) so the sub-company can get the enumerated duties and responsibilities accomplished. But, all by-laws of the sub-company are for the sub-company alone.
Unless you contract as a man with another man to have your two entities contract together, and you take on a TITLE within the sub-company directly and make yourself an entity (person), you do not fall under the by-laws. This contracting and conversion also requires full disclosure and understanding of the diminished conversion to an entity with duties and responsibilities, and what that entails. If not fully disclosed and understood, and also a remedy provided to remove yourself upon disclosure, it becomes constructive fraud. This is why lawyers and attorneys “practice” law (legal) in order to keep the illusion going.
Constitution Enumerated Duties - the WHO
Part III of this series clearly demonstrated that the newly established UNITED STATES (which is a different organization from the Confederation - as clearly stated in the letter from GEORGE WASHINGTON - on behalf of the UNITED STATES in Congress assembled - to GEORGE WASHINGTON In Convention of the United States), was created by WE the PEOPLE (those People from the States comprising the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES, now a new Congress) were to be responsible for enumerated duties in the Sea jurisdiction (maritime and admiralty) that covers “civil”, “commercial”, and “martial” law, to handle “the power of making war, peace and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities”.
There is NO mention of laws or regulation of the states or those of mankind within a nation-state. This basic (but intentionally hidden and ignored) understanding clarifies the enumerated duties and the very strict limitations around these duties. Per the 1787 Constitution (that was ratified in 1788) those enumerated, and very limited duties of this newly formed Congress are:
Sect. 8. The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties; imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post-offices and post-roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offences against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings;—and,
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
And, the preamble clearly notes the responsibility of the new UNITED STATES:
in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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. (effect added)
All references are about the “United States” and clearly note “States”. At no point are “people” or “states” mentioned by style or name. Why are we not taught this in our institutionalized schooling system? Why are we taught to memorize and not think?
The next important distinction is the discussion of taxes in the Constitution:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to the respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. (effect added)
Keeping with the same styling and words, it is obvious the taxes are for States based on numbers. The numbers used to calculate the apportionment are based on the count of free “persons”. In this case, “persons” are the natural living persons as a man, potentially with duties. However, “free” is used as an adjective to distinguish the “persons” in question. Per the definition below, the rank in society is free. Then, after that, those bound to service (indentured servitude as an example); it does not include Indians in the count; and a ratio of three fifths of the balance of “persons”. This was intentionally used to separate the use of “men” in the Declaration of Independence and the English Law denoting human beings as slaves with no rights, and also, to denote the responsibility of the free person as a number to be counted; nothing more.
Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition
PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds In society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which It imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137.
A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a "thing" Is the object over which rights may be exercised.
—Artificial persons. Such as are created and devised by law for the purposes of society and government, called "corporations" or "bodies politic."—Natural persons. Such as are formed by nature, as distinguished from artificial persons, or corporations.—Private person. An individual who is not the incumbent of an office.
Notice that the definition of “person” assumes a distinction of rank. So a “free person” has the “rank” of “free”. Now, compare this to Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition which greatly expanded the definition to include all manner of inclusions to accommodate Sea jurisdiction expansion of things, corporations, counties, etc...
PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. People v. R. Co., 134 N.Y. 506, 31 N.E. 873. The word in its natural and usual signification includes women as well as men. Commonwealth v. Welosky, 276 Mass. 398, 177 N.E. 656.
Term may include artificial beings, as corporations, 1 Bla.Com. 123; 4 Bingh. 669; People v. Com'rs of Taxes, 23 N.Y. 242; quasi-corporations, Sedgw. Stat. & Const. L. 372; L. R. 5 App. Cas. 857; territorial corporations, Seymour v. School District, 53 Conn. 507, 3 A. 552; and foreign corporations, People v. McLean, 80 N.Y. 259; under statutes, forbidding the taking of property without due process of law and giving to all persons the equal protection of the laws, Smyth v. Ames, 18 S.Ct. 418, 169 U.S. 466, 42 L.Ed. 819; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 17 S.Ct. 255, 165 U.S. 150, 41 L.Ed. 666; concerning claims arising from Indian depredations, U. S. v. Transp. Co., 17 S.Ct. 206, 164 U.S. 686, 41 L.Ed. 599; relating to taxation and the revenue laws, People v. Mc-Lean, 80 N.Y. 254; to attachments, Bray v. Wallingford, 20 Conn. 416; usurious contracts, Philadelphia Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Conn. 249; applying to limitation of actions, Olcott v. R. Co., 20 N.Y. 210, 75 Am.Dec. 393; North Mo. R. Co. v. Akers, 4 Kan. 453, 96 Am.Dec. 183; and concerning the admissibility as a witness of a party in his own behalf when the opposite party is a living person, La Farge v. Ins. Co., 22 N.Y. 352. A. corporation is also a person under a penal statute; U. S. v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392, 6 L.Ed. 502.
Corporations are "persons" as that word is used in the first clause of the XIVth Amendment; Covington & L. Turnp. Co. v. Sandford, 17 S.Ct. 198, 164 U.S. 578, 41 L.Ed. 560; Smyth v. Ames, 18 S.Ct. 418, 169 U.S. 466, 42 L.Ed. 819; People v. Fire Ass'n, 92 N.Y. 311, 44 Am.Rep. 380; U. S. v. Supply Co., 30 S.Ct. 15, 215 U.S. 50, 54 L.Ed. 87; contra, Central P. R. Co. v. Board, 60 Cal. 35. But a corporation of another state is not a "person" within the jurisdiction of the state until it has complied with the conditions of admission to do business in the state, Fire Ass'n of Phila. v. 1299
PERSON
New York, 7 S.Ct. 108, 119 U.S. 110, 30 L.Ed. 342; and a statutory requirement of such conditions is not in conflict with the XIVth Amendment; Pembina Consol. S. M. & M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 8 S.Ct. 737, 125 U.S. 181, 189, 31 L.Ed. 650. It may include partnerships. In re Julian, D. C.Pa., 22 F.Supp. 97, 99. Also firms. State ex rel. Joseph R. Peebles Sons Co. v. State Board of Pharmacy, 127 Ohio St. 513, 189 N.E. 447, 448. "Persons" are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons include a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation; a collection of property to which the law attributes the capacity of having rights and duties. The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law. Examples are the estate of a bankrupt or deceased person. Hogan v. Greenfield, 58 Wyo. 13, 122 P.2d 850, 853. It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons, Blair v. Worley, 1 Scam., Ill., 178; Appeal of Fox, 112 Pa. 337 ; 4 A. 149 ; but as a rule corporations will be considered persons within the statutes unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly to exclude them. Stribbling v. Bank, 5 Rand., Va., 132. 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, but contra within the meaning of a statute, providing a penalty for 'the fraudulent alteration of a public record with intent that any "person" be defrauded, Martin v. State, 24 Tex. 61; and within the meaning of a covenant for quiet and peaceful possession against all and every person or persons; Giddings v. Holter, 19 Mont. 263, 48 P. 8. An Indian is a person, U. S. v. Crook, 5 Dill. 459, Fed.Cas.No.14,891; and a slave was so considered, in so far, as to be capable of committing a riot . in conjunction with white men, State v. Thackam, 1 Bay, S.C., 358. The estate of a decedent is a person, Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54, 6 N.E. 914, 7 N.E. 763, 57 Am. Rep. 77; and where the statute makes the owner of a dog liable for injuries to any person, it includes the property of such person, Brewer v. Crosby, 11 Gray, Mass., 29; but where the statute provided damages for the bite of a dog which had previously bitten a person, it was held insufficient to show that the dog had previously bitten a goat, [1896] 2 Q.B. 109; a dog will not be included in the word in an act which authorizes a person to kill dogs running at large, Heisrodt v. Hackett, 34 Mich. 283, 22 Am.Rep. 529.
Where the statute prohibited any person from pursuing his usual vocation on the Lord's Day, it was held to apply to a judge holding court. Bass v. Irvin, 49 Ga. 436. A child en ventre sa mere is not a person. Dietrich v. Northampton, 138 Mass. 14, 52 Am.Rep. 242; but an infant is so considered; Madden v. Springfield, 131 Mass. 441.
In the United States bankruptcy act of 1898, it is provided that the word "persons" shall include corporations, except where otherwise specified, and officers, partnerships, and women, and, when used with reference to the commission of acts which are therein forbidden, shall include persons who are participants in the forbidden acts, and the agents, officers, and members of the board of directors or trustees, or their controlling bodies, of corporations. 11 U.S.C.A. § 1.
Persons are the subject of rights and duties; and, as a subject of a right, the person is the object of the correlative duty, and conversely. The subject of a right has been called by Professor Holland, the person of inherence ; the subject of a duty, the person of incidence. "Entitled" and "bound" are the terms in common use in English and for most purposes they are adequate. Every full citizen is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not citizens, may be persons. But not every human being is necessarily a person, for a person is capable of rights and duties, and there may well be human beings having no legal rights, as was the case with slaves in English law.
• • *
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. IL
(effect added)
Here is the take away; a free person can be, but is not necessarily a man or woman who is free. To be a “person” in any distinction opens the door to any of the above duties and responsibilities depending on the conditions that are met.
However, in the case of taxes, no where does the enumerated duties state that the man or woman or free person is to be taxed. Only the State by apportionment. This clarity makes for an interesting question: where did income taxes come from? That will be addressed in later articles.
Hopefully, mankind can start to see the significant difference in what we have been taught, contrasted to what was actually written and defined in the Constitution; and the lead up to this point in history. The framers understood law, both common and Roman. They also had a tremendous faith in the Creator and how that should guide our government.
The next installment should be interesting as we break down the Bill of Rights. If it has not become apparent so far, people, as a man or woman on the land in their state, are not in the jurisdiction of the Sea. As the actual information unfolds, the questions may start to creep into your mind about how we have been tricked. Then one may wonder how to unbind what has been bound…
Ultimately, after the basic reality becomes apparent, will you be able to forgive those who trespass on you and your property? Government by itself is not bad. What man does with government can be another thing entirely.
Keep them coming !! Great stuff !!