The Birth of a Non-Territorial Nation Chapter 11:

Damon
Amity Haven
Published in
7 min readFeb 12, 2024

--

The Birth of a Non-Territorial Nation Chapter 11

There may be reasons why one would want to opt out of being a Citizen:

‘Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th Cir. 1983)’

  • Case in the Fourth Circuit that affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, which supports the idea that there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state from harm inflicted by third parties.

‘Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982)’ 11

  • Case in the Seventh Circuit that held that a private citizen does not have a constitutional right to be protected against private violence by the state.
  • The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require their agency federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order (for those not a party to the contract). Thus, because there is no constitutional duty to provide such protection for the Public at Large, {the state’s} failure to do so is not actionable under Title 42, section 1983, of the United States Code (U.S.C.).

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (1833):

  • “The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests.”

Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah (1854): But indeed, no person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact (contract), but he is not a party to it.

Imbler v. Pachtman, The doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity: Established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 in the case of Imbler v. Pachtman.

  • This doctrine grants prosecutors immunity from civil lawsuits for actions they take within their roles as prosecutors, even if those actions violate the civil rights of individuals. It protects prosecutors accused of falsifying evidence, coercing witnesses, and hiding evidence showing a defendant’s innocence, among other unconscionable acts.

Henzel v. Gertstein (1979): Prosecutor can suppress exculpatory evidence. (Exculpatory defined: Evidence showing one innocent).

Norton v. Liddell (1980): Prosecutor may knowingly file charges against innocent persons for a crime that never occurred.

Warren v. District of Columbia (1981):

  • Official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection … this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen … a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.

MAPCO, Inc. v Carter (1978) No constitutional right exists under the Ninth Amendment, or to any other provision of the Constitution of the United States, “…to trust the Federal Government and to rely on the integrity of its pronouncements.”

Myers v. Morris (1986): Prosecutor may file charges outside of his jurisdiction. and. Prosecutor may file charges without any investigation.

Ashelman v. Pope (1986): Prosecutors are immune from lawsuit for conspiring with judges to determine outcome of judicial proceedings.

  • The district court dismissed Ashelman’s complaint and denied his motion to amend on the grounds of judicial and prosecutorial immunity. It ruled that the judge’s actions were protected by judicial immunity and that the prosecutor was protected by prosecutorial immunity. The court also held that the Mohave County Attorney’s Office could not be held liable as the doctrine of respondent superior was inapplicable in civil rights actions.

Jones v. Shankland (1987): Prosecutor may knowingly offer perjured testimony.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989): Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.

Davis v. Grusemever (1993): Immunity extends to all activities closely associated with litigation or potential litigation.

Castle Rock v Gonzalez (2005): Ms. Gonzales did not have a “property interest” in enforcing the restraining order and that “such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property.”

The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amount to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. — Senate Document #43; Senate Resolution No 62 (Page 9, Paragraph 2, 1933)

Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1238 — Sovereign States are: States whose subjects or citizens are in the habit of obedience to them.

Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1252 — Sovereignty: The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration…

Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1277 — Subject: Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. 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.

“Citizenship connotes membership in a political society and implies a duty of permanent allegiance to that society.” — David Weissbrodt, Immigration Law and Procedure in a Nutshell.

In Pierson v. Ray (1967), the Supreme Court established that judges are immune from civil liability for their judicial acts.

Eduardo Aguirre, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — Citizenship, is, by definition, a condition of allegiance to, and participation in, a governmental jurisdiction. It means, for a collective order, a pledge of loyalty, commitment to actively participate in civics and community, and willingness to serve when and where called upon. Citizenship begins within the individual but is nurtured by the country.

Blacks Law 5th Edition page 733 — The Law of Nations is International Law. “the law which regulates the intercourse of nations; the law of nations. The customary law which determines the rights and regulates the intercourse of independent nations in peace and war.”

The Law of Nations Book 1 Section 244 — Everything in the political society ought to tend to the good of the community; and since even the persons of the citizens are subject to this rule, their property cannot be excepted. The state could not subsist, or constantly administer the public affairs in the most advantageous manner, if it had not a power to dispose occasionally of all kinds of property subject to its authority. …When therefore the people confer the empire on any one, they at the same time invest him with the eminent domain, unless it be expressly reserved.

The Law of Nations Book 2 Section 81 — The property of the citizens is the property of the nation, with respect to foreign nations. Even the property of the individuals is, in the aggregate, to be considered as the property of the nation, with respect to other states. It, in some sort, really belongs to her, from the right she has over the property of her citizens, because it constitutes a part of the sum total of her riches, and augments her power. She is interested in that property by her obligation to protect all her members. In short, it cannot be otherwise, since nations act and treat together as bodies in their quality of political societies, and are considered as so many moral persons. All those who form a society, a nation being considered by foreign nations as constituting only one whole, one single person, — all their wealth together can only be considered as the wealth of that same person. And this is to true, that each political society may, if it pleases, establish within itself a community of goods, as Campanella did in his republic of the sun. Others will not inquire what it does in this respect: its domestic regulations make no change in its rights with respect to foreigners nor in the manner in which they ought to consider the aggregate of its property, in what way soever it is possessed.

The Law of Nations Book 2 Section 82 — A consequence of this principle. By an immediate consequence of this principle, if one nation has a right to any part of the property of another, she has an indiscriminate right to the property of the citizens of the latter nation until the debt be discharged. This maxim is of great use, as shall hereafter be shown.

Disclaimer:

“I’m diving into an exciting exploration of the ‘Territorial Nation Model’ through my series on ‘The Birth of a New Nation.’ And let me be clear — I’m not throwing shade at the United States or any other similar Territorial Nation. What I am thrilled to highlight is that these nations align well with their citizens, that these nations and their citizens are in perfect mutual congruity, but there may be individuals seeking a different identity within these borders. This is why I’m passionately advocating for potentially groundbreaking concepts: the formation of entirely new nations that better reflect the diverse tapestry of identities. It’s not just about critique; it’s about transformation and the thrilling possibility of redefining nationhood to embrace a new paradigm!”

--

--

Damon
Amity Haven

Introspection, Global Coherence, Humanitarian / Disability Aid, Ocean Clean-Up / Reforestation Charities, International Law and Privacy Coins.