Tag Archives: #MIND

The word “res­i­dent” is con­structed from two Latin roots, “res” which trans­lates into eng­lish as “thing” and “ident” which trans­lates into eng­lish as “iden­ti­fied” (also side note on ”IDENTIFY: ID is an asso­ci­a­tion and mate­ri­al­iza­tion of the mind.)

This refers to the group­ing ID, EGO and the Super ego Mak­ing up the MIND, now for the sec­ond part of the word, ENTIFY which means to actu­al­ize a thought or bet­ter yet a cre­ation of an entity, So to ID-ENTIFY your­self is to present your mind in a rec­og­niz­able way i.e. Dri­vers License, Sta­tus Card.

This is an attempt to avoid your ego when deal­ing with you as a whole, essen­tially divid­ing your mind, stop­ping your col­lec­tive con­scious­ness from being fully involved or aware of your sub­mis­sions by only address­ing the PERSON-ality in one man­ner: 2Dimentional)

So “res­i­dent” lit­er­ally means a thing that has been iden­ti­fied. Are you such a thing? Your gov­ern­ment says you are. What then does it mean to be a legal “res­i­dent” and “reside” in a State?

Res­i­dent. One who has his res­i­dence in a per­ma­nent place.

If you are sta­tused as a “res­i­dent” you are sub­ject to all kinds of civil code as a per­son or indi­vid­ual that does not apply to inhab­i­tants who can still get the pro­tec­tion of the com­mon law. For instance, in most states, a “non­res­i­dent” is exempt from any car tax impo­si­tion by local gov­ern­ment UNLESS the non­res­i­dent is in com­mer­cial activ­ity with the vehi­cle other than farm to mar­ket commerce.

The term res­i­dent must be given its mean­ing and sig­nif­i­cance from the con­text in which it is used. Gen­er­ally, the word ‘res­i­dent’ is one of com­mon usage with numer­ous def­i­n­i­tions to be found in judi­cial deci­sions. As stated in 77 C.J.S. Res­i­dent at p. 305–306, the word has no tech­ni­cal mean­ing, and no fixed mean­ing applic­a­ble to all cases, but rather it has many mean­ings, and is used in dif­fer­ent and var­i­ous senses, and it has received var­i­ous inter­pre­ta­tions by the courts.

That text goes on to state that in order to con­sti­tute a per­son a res­i­dent of a par­tic­u­lar state, he must intend to make, and actu­ally make, that state his home, although he need not have deter­mined to make it always his home.

Thus a per­son becomes a res­i­dent of a state when he is per­son­ally present at some place of abode within the state, with no present inten­tion of def­i­nite and early removal, and with a pur­pose and intent to remain for an unde­ter­mined period, not infre­quently, but not nec­es­sar­ily, com­bined with a design to remain permanently.

Res­i­dence indi­cates per­ma­nency of occu­pa­tion, as dis­tinct from lodg­ing, or board­ing, or tem­po­rary occu­pa­tion, but does not include so much as domi­cile [sic], which requires an inten­tion con­tin­ued with res­i­dence. 19 Mc. 293; 2 Kent, Comm. 10^th ed. 576. Bouvier’s Law Dic­tio­nary 14^th edi­tion, Vol. II, page 470

“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. A person’s res­i­dence is said to con­sist of bod­ily pres­ence in a place and the inten­tion of remain­ing in that place.

Res­i­dence is thus made up of both fact and inten­tion. Whether a per­son is or is not a res­i­dent of a par­tic­u­lar place is a ques­tion of law and fact, to be deter­mined from all the facts of each par­tic­u­lar case.

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 required 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. [see also In re Riley’s Will, 266 N.Y.S. 209, 148 Misc. 588.] Blacks Law Dic­tio­nary, 4^th Ed., Page 1176

On the face of it, non­res­i­dent sounds like some­body who doesn’t live there and res­i­dent sounds like some­body who does. But I am firmly con­vinced (by other usage and pro­vi­sions asso­ci­ated with the word non­res­i­dent in the code) that the col­lo­quial mean­ing is not the legal mean­ing of these words. And this is where the Buck Act, Zip Codes, etc. do apply.

You qual­ify your­self as a “res­i­dent” if you have a free deliv­ery postal address. Res­i­dents and nonresident/inhabitants alike are sub­ject to excise taxes (like the income tax). Also a Social Secu­rity par­tic­i­pant or any­body receiv­ing fed­eral ben­e­fits addressed to them per­son­ally is a cit­i­zen of the United States and a “res­i­dent” of their State.

If your con­duct matches the def­i­n­i­tion and/or you elect on gov­ern­ment forms by your sig­na­ture to be a res­i­dent, then you have estab­lished your­self by law to be a “resident”.

All State codes define the word “res­i­dent” and read sim­i­lar to the fol­low­ing statute.

Inten­tion to estab­lish a per­ma­nent res­i­dence in this state is a fac­tual deter­mi­na­tion to be made, in the first instance, by the prop­erty appraiser. Although any one fac­tor is not con­clu­sive of the estab­lish­ment or non estab­lish­ment of per­ma­nent res­i­dence, the fol­low­ing are rel­e­vant fac­tors that may be con­sid­ered by the prop­erty appraiser in mak­ing his or her deter­mi­na­tion as to a per­ma­nent res­i­dence in this state:

1. For­mal dec­la­ra­tions of the appli­cant.
2. Infor­mal state­ments of the appli­cant.
3. The place of employ­ment of the appli­cant.
4. The pre­vi­ous per­ma­nent res­i­dency by the appli­cant in a state other than this state or in another coun­try and the date for­eign res­i­dency was ter­mi­nated.
5.The place where the appli­cant is reg­is­tered to vote.
6. The place of issuance of a driver’s license to the appli­cant.
7. The place of issuance of a license tag on any motor vehi­cle owned by the appli­cant.
8. The address as listed on fed­eral income tax returns filed by the appli­cant.
9. The pre­vi­ous fil­ing of any State tax returns by the applicant.

It seems clear from the above lan­guage that the Leg­is­la­ture intended by the gen­eral and unqual­i­fied use of the term ‘res­i­dents’ to dis­tin­guish this class of per­sons. Thus, the Leg­is­la­ture has made a dis­tinc­tion between res­i­dents and non res­i­dents. It would appear in the absence of any leg­isla­tive direc­tion oth­er­wise that the above-mentioned ‘fact-plus-intention’ test should be applied to deter­mine if an indi­vid­ual is a res­i­dent or a non­res­i­dent of the state in each par­tic­u­lar case.

A “legal res­i­dence” is a loca­tion where a per­son is presently liv­ing with the present inten­tion of mak­ing it his per­ma­nent abode. A per­son may have sev­eral tem­po­rary local res­i­dences, but can have only one legal res­i­dence. A legal res­i­dence, or domi­cile, is the place where a per­son has fixed an abode with the present inten­tion of mak­ing it their per­ma­nent home.

“Legal res­i­dence” is defined as the “per­ma­nent fixed place of abode which per­son intends to be his res­i­dence and to which he intends to return despite… tem­po­rary absences.” Black’s Law Dic­tio­nary 807 (5^th Ed.1979)

While sub­jec­tive inten­tion is the best evi­dence of “legal res­i­dence,” the courts have clearly rec­og­nized that res­i­dence may be estab­lished by objec­tive facts as well. Res­i­dence is a mat­ter of objec­tive fact, although sub­jec­tive intent is the best proof of domi­cile, this is not to sug­gest that proof of legal res­i­dence can­not be mea­sured by objec­tive factors.

If you elect to be a cit­i­zen of the United States or a US cit­i­zen by sign­ing on a gov­ern­ment form, you simul­ta­ne­ously elect to be a “res­i­dent” of your State. All of this decep­tive legal lan­guage is nec­es­sary for the government’s legal pur­poses because the States have been con­quered and occu­pied, but not com­pletely absorbed by the fed­eral authority.

A Tenth Amend­ment limit on fed­eral author­ity was affirmed in the recent Brady deci­sion. Because the States accept fed­eral funds and fed­eral author­ity with the funds, it’s dif­fi­cult to tell where mar­tial law fed­eral author­ity begins and fed­eral author­ity from finan­cial incen­tive ends. But, prac­ti­cally speak­ing, it does not mat­ter in the legal sys­tem. The effect is the same.

Your Right to Travel or Lib­erty of Move­ment Right is a com­mon law right and if you can­not get under the com­mon law because you have sta­tused your­self as a res­i­dent, you only have civil rights. Civil rights are the rights of 14^th amend­ment cit­i­zens. They are leg­is­lated by Con­gress and are not the Bill of Rights rights.

Con­gress has not leg­is­lated a right to travel. I have seen the propo­si­tion that a State can­not inter­fere with your 14^th Amend­ment right to go on the high­ways from State to State. The right to go on the high­ways among the sev­eral States with­out State inter­fer­ence has been held by the court to be a 14^th Amend­ment Con­sti­tu­tional right.

But the case in ques­tion did not involve “rea­son­able state reg­u­la­tion” like insur­ance and tags and licenses and I think that has been upheld against “res­i­dents” on numer­ous occa­sions. And res­i­dents in court are in a civil law venue under mar­tial law.

So, your right to travel with­out license, tags, and insur­ance is there in the com­mon law if you can get sta­tused to be under its pro­tec­tion and IF you can deal with the law mar­tial law enforce­ment offi­cers, judges, and procedures.

Com­mon law abate­ment pleas can keep you out of their traf­fic court, but I don’t yet know how you get your impounded car back. This com­mon law right could be extin­guished by a treaty, but so far as I know has not been, yet.

In con­clu­sion, it is our opin­ion, unless judi­cially deter­mined oth­er­wise, that the word ‘res­i­dent’ as used in the Law, means a per­son who makes his home or place of abode within the geo­graph­i­cal bound­aries of the State with no present inten­tion of mov­ing out­side the State or district.

Now under­stand­ing the use­age of the word, look around at it applied to many sit­u­a­tions where juris­dic­tion is assumed, e.g. RESERVATION, RESET, RESTORE all pre­sump­tions of a faulty state, need­ing some sort of cor­rec­tional appli­ca­tion to address non mem­bers and incor­po­rate all per­sons within its quasi boarders.