The Myth Of United States Citizenship
According to their terms.
Absent intent or authority as legal advice.
First, what is a “citizen”?
Well, Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) says that
“Citizenship is membership in a political society and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other”
There is a lot to unpack here. First, Citizenship is membership in a political society. Okay. That’s a common understanding.
But the meaning of that - “implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member, and a duty of protection on the part of the society” is unsustainable in today’s United States.
The important qualifier is this “These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.”
The United States Constitution lays out equal protection of the law accordingly: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” While this burden is on the states to observe, it is necessary to point out that states follow SCOTUS case law as governing.
Qualified Immunity (license to kill)
Scotus introduced qualified immunity in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967).
“They went on to state that although police officers are not granted absolute and unqualified immunity from liability for damages, they may be excused from liability for acting under a statute that he reasonably believed to be valid but that was later held unconstitutional, on its face or as applied, similar to the principle that a police officer "... who arrests someone with probable cause is not liable for false arrest simply because the innocence of the suspect is later proved.” (Wikipedia)
Without taking you through connecting the dots, qualified immunity exists for police officers in the absence of “clearly established law” to the contrary at the time.
So what SCOTUS has done, and what the states act upon, is the doctrine of qualified immunity, that has absolutely no origin in the Constitution.
If you don’t believe me, since I’m NOT a lawyer, read the work by William Baude published in the California Law Review, called “Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?” In this article, Mr. Baude points out that qualified immunity “is a judicially invented immunity for a judicially ‘invented’ statute.”
Without arguing further on whether qualified immunity is Constitutionally based, I will just point out the theme of this article, and that is - a fair and just system will hold itself accountable, while an unfair and unjust system will avoid accountability at all costs.
Qualified immunity is for totalitarian regimes. A system that is unaccountable is not a free society.
Even the SCOTUS, in Luria says that there is a duty of protection on the part of the society, and that the duty of allegiance is “reciprocal” to the duty of protection, and that these two duties are “compensation for the other.”
A society that does not protect its citizenry with accountability of the system is a system that is not “compensating” the duty of allegiance that is presumed owed by the individual.
IS there a duty of protection on the part of the society?
Quoting THIS article from mises.org, “In the cases DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.” (emphasis added)
So, NO. There is no duty of protection for the individual that can be expected from society, thanks to these rulings by SCOTUS.
At this time, I’ve already outlined the elimination of the duty of allegiance of the individual, because there is absolutely NO duty of protection on the part of the society.
According to the standard set out in Luria, citizenship has been nullified by the SCOTUS, with its elimination of any expectation of a duty of protection.
But let’s go further and explore the other problems with this entire setup.
SCOTUS authorizes law enforcement to lie.
Frazier v. Cupp 394 U.S. 731 (1969), is a SCOTUS case that affirmed the legality of “deception” (lies, by any reasonable standard) in interrogation.
The case set a precedent that a confession is voluntary, even if deceptive tactics (lies) are used.
Here is the picture. The police are authorized to lie to you and they demand that you tell them the truth…
So, SCOTUS has given “qualified immunity” to law enforcement, and has authorized them to lie, and this is fair HOW?
The authorization of lying by police swings the needle on the “protection” scale the other way. Now, there is harm to many individuals, because of confessions obtained when cops lie with impunity.
Personally, I have diagnosed social communication disorder, and this ruling of Frazier eliminates any chance that I have equal access to the “programs, services, and activities” of the state.
Can we agree that a system that is not accountable directly to the people it claims have a duty of allegiance, according to Luria, is a system that is unfair, unsustainable and without “reciprocation”.
If there is no duty of protection, and instead, there is an opportunity for harm against the individual in EVERY police encounter, then the matter of the individual having a duty of allegiance is unquestionably unsupported.
Add to this quagmire the term “judicial immunity” Bradley v. Fisher (1872), which is another harm to the individual, and you have a system like we have now, in which judicial terrorism is rampant, family courts regularly kidnap/traffic children with impunity, and people are incarcerated without due process.
I know in my own life, that, as William Goren, the attorney/author of the book Understanding the ADA, has said, lawyers are afraid to take on court systems for fear of disbarment or other proceedings, because courts “fight back hard.”
I’ve written here that the system needs to be revamped using the fact that Frazier totally eliminates the fair and equal access to the state system. Frazier creates a disability for most every American, in that it substantially limits the major life activities of thinking, concentrating, communicating, interacting with others, and the endocrine system because of the fight or flight adrenal burst that cyclically affects the aforementioned major life activities. Every American has rights to claim ADA discrimination because of Frazier.
All other state offered services are without the protection of “authorized lying” to get what they want. I’m certain that a lot of lying goes on in the other departments, but they aren’t protected as a class, the way law enforcement is.
Judges in America today are unaccountable. The system in America today is unaccountable. Police in American today are unaccountable.Politicians in America today are unaccountable. SCOTUS is unaccountable (the recent leak proves that they are also playing the system against the people)
These constructs have REFUSED a duty to protect the individual.
The individual, thus, has no duty of allegiance.
I withdraw and rescind allegiance, if it ever existed with full disclosure or fully informed consent.
With the coming WHO tyranny that is shortly upon us, perhaps this action is worth considering.
P.D., JAY V SHORE,
As Certified ADA Advocate, all rights, including interpretation are retained.