This discussion might prove useful in facilitating the legal theory and argument that the STATE OF TEXAS, i.e. “this state,” has knowingly, willfully, and completely unconstitutionally disqualified the entirety of the People of Texas from ever serving upon our Texas juries. Thus expressly denying our fellow Texans that have been accused of any crime from having their due process right to a fair and impartial trial before a jury comprised of one’s peers. And it is all due to the statutory exclusion of anyone that is not a “citizen of the United States” from qualifying for jury duty.
The term “citizen of the United States” is statutorily defined in a manner that expressly excludes any one or more of the People permanently domiciled within the Republic of Texas from participating on any jury, unless that individual falsely declares themselves to be a “citizen of the United States” and a mere “resident” of “this state.”
This is what is contained in the Texas Jury Summons and Questionnaire form relating to qualifications for serving on a jury:
QUALIFICATIONS FOR JURY SERVICE
(Texas Government Code, Section 62.102)
To be qualified to serve as a juror you must:
1. be at least 18 years of age;
2. be a citizen of the United States;
3. be a resident of this state and a resident of the county in which you are to serve as a juror;
4. be qualified under the Constitution and laws to vote in the county in which you are to serve as a juror (Note: You do not have to be registered to vote to be qualified to vote);
5. be of sound mind and good moral character;
6. be able to read and write;
7. not have served as a juror for six days during the preceding three months in the county court or during the preceding six months in the district court; and
8. not have been convicted of, or be under indictment or other legal accusation for, misdemeanor theft or a felony.
I certify that I am exempt or disqualified from jury service for the reasons circled above.
Thus, it is not clear if the intended definition for this purpose is one defined according to a geographical use and characterization or political use and characterization.
However, as the term “citizen” is one most commonly recognized as a POLITICAL affiliation and NOT a geographic affiliation, it cannot be readily presumed that the latter is the objective meaning of “citizen of the United States.” United States Supreme Court case opinions reflect the affiliation of a “citizen” as one of a political nature:
Citizen. One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. U.S.Const., 14th Amend. See Citizenship.
“Citizens” are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.
The term may include or apply to children of alien parents born in United States, Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, D.C.Md., 23 F.2d 862,863; U. S. v. Minoru Yasui D.C.Or., 48 F.Supp. 40, 54; children of American citizens born outside United States, Haaland v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 42 F.Supp. 13,22; Indians, United States v. Hester, C.C.A.Okl., 137 F.2d 145, 147; National Banks, American Surety Co. v. Bank of California, C.C.A.Or., 133 F.2d 160, 162; nonresident who has qualified as administratrix of estate of deceased resident, Hunt v. Noll, C.C.A.Tenn., 112 F.2d 288, 289. However, neither the United States nor a state is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Jizemerjian v. Dept. of Air Force, 457 F.Supp. 820. On the other hand, municipalities and other local governments are deemed to be citizens. Rieser v. District of Columbia, 563 F.2d 462. A corporation is not a citizen for purposes of privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. D. D. B. Realty Corp. v. Merrill, 232 F.Supp. 629, 637.
Under the diversity statute, which mirrors U.S. Const. Article Ill’s diversity clause, a person is a “citizen of a state” if he or she is a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of a state of the United States. Gibbons v. Udaras na Gaeltachta, D.C.N.Y., 549 F.Supp. 1094, 1116.
Therefore, it is arguable that the term “citizen of the United States” is actually being used in its common and correct political context
Texas statutes don’t define the singular term “citizen’ at all, but they DO define “United States” in the following codes and ways:
TITLE 3. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND BUSINESSES
SUBTITLE G. BANK HOLDING COMPANIES; INTERSTATE BANK OPERATIONS
CHAPTER 201. GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(45) “United States” means:
(A) when used in a geographical sense, the several states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the American Virgin Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and other territories of the United States; and
(B) when used in a political sense, the federal government of the United States.
Now, other than a definition in the Water Code that is limited specifically to the statutory provisions of the Pecos River Compact, this is the only other definition in all of Texas law or statute that defines the singular term “United States.” Which leaves us with more questions than answers as to how the particular classification and status of “citizen of the United States” is to be applied when determining one’s qualifications for jury duty in “this state,” not to mention what waivers, immunities, rights or other protections may be prejudiced or non-existent because of same.
If we also take into consideration the legal meaning of “residence” and “resident” as being a temporary dwelling place versus the legal meaning of “domiciled” as being a permanent home, we can see that any and all of our fellow Texans and peers that are permanently domiciled within the Republic of Texas are being unconstitutionally excluded from serving on our juries. Which I consider to be a VERY big problem. See for yourself why the real legal meanings of these terms needs to be examined into and carefully studied:
Residence. Place where one actually lives o r has his home; a person’s dwelling place or place of habitation; an abode; house where one’s home is; a dwelling house. Perez v. Health and Social Services, 91 N.M. 334, 573 P.2d 689, 692. Personal presence at some place of abode with no present intention of definite and early removal and with purpose to remain for undetermined period, not infrequently, but not necessarily combined with design to stay permanently. T.P. Laboratories, Inc. v. Huge, D.C.Md., 197 F.Supp. 860, 865.
Residence implies something more than mere physical presence and something less than domicile. Petition of Castrinakis, D.C.Md., 179 F.Supp. 444, 445. The terms “resident” and “residence” have no precise legal meaning; sometimes they mean domicile plus physical presence; sometimes they mean domicile; and sometimes they mean something less than domicile. Willenbrock v. Rogers, C.A.Pa., 255 F.2d 236, 237. See also Abode; Domicile; Legal residence; Principal residence.
“Domicile” compared and distinguished. As “domicile” and “residence” are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one’s domicile. Fuller v. Hofferbert, C.A.Ohio, 204 F.2d 592, 597. “Residence” is not synonymous with “domicile,” though the two terms are closely related; a person may have only one legal domicile at one time, but he may have more than one residence. Fielding v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, La.App., 331 So.2d 186, 188.
In certain contexts the courts consider “residence” and “domicile” to be synonymous (e.g. divorce action, Cooper v. Cooper, 269 Cal.App.2d 6, 74 Cal.Rptr. 439, 441); while in others the two terms are distinguished (e.g. venue, Fromkin v. Loehmann’s Hewlett, Inc., 16 Misc.2d 1 17, 184 N.Y.S.2d 63, 65).
Immigration law. The place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his or her principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent. 8 V.S.C.A. § 1 101. Legal residence. See that title.
Resident. Any person who occupies a dwelling within the State, has a present intent to remain within the State for a period of time, and manifests the genuineness of that intent by establishing an ongoing physical presence within the State together with indicia that his presence within the State is something other than merely transitory in nature. The word “resident” when used as a noun, means a dweller, habitant or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less, duration; it signifies one having a residence, or one who resides or abides. Hanson v. P. A. Peterson Home Ass’n, 35 Ill.App.2d 134, 182 N.E.2d 237, 240. Word “resident” has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used. KeIrn v. Carlson, C.A.Ohio, 473 F.2d 1267, 1271. See also Residence.
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. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310, 213 A.2d 94. Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one’s home are the requisites of establishing a “domicile” therein. Montoya v. Collier, 85 N.M. 356, 512 P.2d 684, 686. The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges. The established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him. See also Abode; Residence.
“Citizenship,” “habitancy,” and “residence” are severally words which in particular cases may mean precisely the same as “domicile,” while in other uses may have different meanings.
“Residence” signifies living in particular locality while “domicile” means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Schreiner v. Schreiner, Tex.Civ.App., 502 S.W.2d 840, 843.
For purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction, “citizenship” and “domicile” are synonymous. Hendry v. Masonite Corp., C.A.Miss., 455 F.2d 955.
Are you able to see and understand yet just exactly why this is a very big deal and problem? You cannot legally serve on a jury in Texas if you are a Texas national who is not a “citizen of the United States” and are permanently domiciled in the Republic of Texas, i.e. you must be a “citizen of the United States” and a temporary resident of “this state,” which is NOT the same as being permanently domiciled in the geographic location known as the Republic of Texas.
Which truly begs the question, just exactly who in the hell is it that is being summoned to serve on our juries, because it most certainly doesn’t appear to be any of our fellow Texans and peers?
So, are you actually getting your constitutionally guaranteed and protected right to a jury trial by your fellow Texans and peers, or are you getting a “rubber stamp” squad fully indentured and obligated to “this state” to find you guilty regardless of the law and the facts, or even the total lack thereof?
Remember when the federal government obeyed the constitution and stayed out of our lives and affairs? Yeah, me neither. And that certainly isn’t going to change any time soon unless we put the evil Genie back into the bottle and shoot it into outer space. But we have to understand a few things in order to accomplish that goal in an expedient manner.
The federal government is conducting a massive land grab within the states of the union. They are literally using federal agencies and bureaucracies to do their dirty work for them in transferring these massive land holdings into the hands of the federal government in the interest of multi-million/billion dollar deals with private developers and investors to privately enrich those members of the United States government that are facilitating these land grabs with their unconstitutional federal laws and agencies. Case in point:
So, in relation to Mr. Joe Robertson’s case, we have to start by asking ourselves a question on the subject of land and control over that land. And that question is “What are the constitutional limits placed upon federal authority over land, especially land within the individual states of the union?” Well, let’s take a look:
First off, there is no such thing as “federal land” unless it is land ceded or purchased for the specific uses stated in the Constitution of the United States in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, which reads “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;”
This tells us these specific things:
1) That the lands upon which D.C. is built as the “seat of government” is lands that are ceded or sold by the states to the “United States” for that particular use.
2) That ANY other land acquired and governed over by the “United States” MUST come to the “United States” by the same two mechanisms, cession by or purchase from the legislature of the particular state(s) in which the land is located.
3) That the only constitutionally valid uses of such land, other than that land used to create Washington D.C., is to be used for the express purposes of “which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
The language “which the Same” means “the land that was ceded or purchased from the state(s),” and the phrase “shall be” is a COMMAND that the use of that land is limited to those uses enumerated and described therein.
Outside of these enumerated uses, there are NO “federal lands” within the several states of the union, only state lands, and therefore, NO FEDERAL JURISDICTION over any such land. His attorney is the one that screwed him by never raising the lack of jurisdiction of the federal agencies and its courts to rule upon anything.
However, once he CONSENTED to be tried under federal law by failing to make such a challenge, THAT is what put the lid on the coffin. After that, any argument made as to what he did or did not do on the non-existent “federal land” was just another nail in the lid.
Federal courts. We hear about them all time and all the big cases that they make decisions on. Most of them adverse to the rights of the American people and very pro-government. In many cases there is an issue of jurisdiction to be considered. Now why would you think that is?
We also hear all the time that “the courts are corrupt, especially the federal courts.” Now why would you think that is?
Perhaps, it is because it is all entirely true. These federal courts have NO jurisdiction within the states of the union, and they never have had.
I posted an earlier article about this case here. But I am adding this one so that you may have other perspectives of the significance of the case.
Take for instance, the Bundy cases in Nevada and Oregon. I have already explained in another article why the federal government’s Bureau of Land [Mis]management (BLM) had no jurisdiction on either piece of property, but consider what is currently developing in those cases and try to see why that lack of jurisdiction would also extend to the federal courts.
Also consider the true implications of that total lack of lawful authority. If the federal government, through its agents in the F.B.I., having no jurisdiction over the land in Oregon and no lawful authority to deny anyone in the state access for any reason, or to allow its occupation by a foreign entity operating under the guise of a federal agency having zero authority on that land, then there can be absolutely no question the LaVoy Finicum was murdered to cover up a massive armed robbery of the People of Oregon, the loot being the land itself.
That would also mean that all the other protestors that occupied the BLM compound were actually trying to stop an armed robbery of the People, and that they were shot at and kidnapped by a band of federally sanctioned murderers and thieves.
But the real stickler of the problem is in realizing that none of this would have been possible in either Nevada or Oregon without the knowing collusion of the higher echelons of government in both of those union states. In other words, the People of Oregon and Nevada have traitors in their midst that are also in charge of their government.
And knowing that, do you really think that your particular state is in any less danger from the treasonous bastards that are currently in control of it? Those same individuals that have already proven time-and-time again that they are perfectly willing to throw your individual rights and liberty under the bus of “progress” and collectivism in the name of public safety and welfare?
THINK for yourselves for once. Try to see the bigger picture for what it is and where it’s going, not just your own small little piece of it where the colors all look just right, at least, for right now.