DOMICILE:A persons legal home. That place where a man has a 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. 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 domicile.
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. 310m 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. 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. [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485]
Those who contract with the government must be domiciled on the governments territory, and that federal territory may not be protected by the Constitution, so they have no rights to "alien" and therefore the organic law is not violated in the process of contracting with the government. The way the government avoids this limitation is by DECEIVING PEOPLE into falsely declaring themselves to be a statutory "U.S. citizen" domiciled on federal territory pursuant to 8 U.S.C 1401.
When you claim to be a U.S citizen, you make your domicile the U.S.
Less than one hundred years after we became a nation, a loophole was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league with the international bankers. They realized that a separate nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This "United States" is a
Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited rule over its citizenry, the residents of the District of Columbia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a citizen by
way of the 14th Amendment (naturalized citizens). All laws passed essentially amount to municipal laws for federal property, and in that capacity, Congress is not restrained by either the Constitution of Bill of Rights.
The following Supreme Court case illustrates the difference between the United States of America, and the federal United States (U.S).
"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially TWO NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside the independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers [of absolutism] as other nations of the earth are accustomed to.. I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischeivous change in our system of government will result. [And indeed it has!] We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitutuion, into an era of legislative absolutism. It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution." Downes v. Bidwell 182 U.s 244 (1901)
You aren't subject to civil law without your explicit voluntary consent
The purpose of establishing government is soley to provide 'Protection'. Those who wish to be protected by a specific government under the civil law must expressly CONSENT to be protected by choosing a domicile within the civil jurisdiction of that specific government. Those who have made such a choice thereby become "customers" of the protection afforded by government and are called by any of the following names under the civil laws of the jurisdiction they have nominated to protect them:
CITIZENS - if they were born somewhere within the country which the jurisdiction is a part
RESIDENTS (aliens) if they were born within the country in which the jurisdiction is a part
INHABITANTS - which encompasses both "citizens" and "residents" but excludes foreigners
Those who have not become "customers" or "protected persons" of a specific government are called by any of the following names within the civil laws of the jurisdiction they have refused to nominate as their protector and may NOT be called by any of the names above:
In law, the process of choosing a domicile within the jurisdiction of a specific government is called "animus manendi". That choice makes you a consenting party to the "civil contract" or "Social compact" and "private law" that attaches to and therefore protects all "inhabitants" and things physically situated on or within that specific territory, venue, and jurisdiction. In a sense then, your consent to a specific jurisdiction by your choice of domicile within that jurisdiction is what creates the "person" "individual" "citizen" "resident" or "inhabitant" which is the only proper subject of the civil laws passed by that government. In other words, choosing a domicile within a specific jurisdiction causes an implied waiver of sovereign immunity, because the courts admit that the term "person" does not refer to the "sovereign"
"This right to protect persons having a domicile, thought not native-born or naturalized citizens, rests on the firm foundation of justice, and the claim to be protected is earned by considerations which the protecting power is not at liberty to disregard. Such domiciled citizen pays the same price for his protection as native-born or naturalized citizens pay for theirs. He is under the bonds of allegiance to the country of his residence, and, if he breaks them, incurs the same penalties. He owes the same obedience to the civil laws. His property is, in the same way and to the same extent as theirs, liable to contribute to the support of the Government. In nearly all respects, his and their condition as to the duties and burdens of government are undistinguishable. [Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S 698 (1893)
Notice the phrase "civil laws" above and the term "claim to be protected". What they are describing is a contract to procure the protection of the government, from which a "claim" arises. Those who are NOT PARTY to the domicile/protection contract have no such claim and are IMMUNE FROM THE CIVIL JURISDICTION of the government. In fact, there are only three ways to become subject to the civil jurisdiction of a specific government. These ways are:
1. Choosing domicile within a specific jurisdiction
2. Representing an entity that has a domicile within a specific jurisdiciton even though not domocile oneself in said jurisdiction. For instance, representing a federal corporation as a public officer of said corporation, even though domociled outside the federal zone. (Via your Birth Certificate, ALL CAPS NAME, SSN). The authority for this type of jurisdiction is, for instance, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b)
3) Engaging in commerce within the civil legislative jurisdiction of a specific government and thereby waiving sovereign immunity under:
3.1 - The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 USC 1605
3.2 - The Minimum Contacts Doctrine, which implements the 14th Amendment.
3.3 - The Longarm Statues of the state jurisdiction where you are physically situated at the time.
Domicile is based on where you currently live or have lived in the past. You can't choose a domocile in a place that you have never been to. Domicile is a voluntary choice that only you can make. It acts as the equivalent of a "protection contract" between you and the government. All such contracts require your voluntary "consent", which the above definitions calls "intent", That intent expresses itself as "allegiance" to the people and the laws of the place where you maintain a domicile.
"Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presense in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes. Since the 14th Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides, the fact of residence creates universally reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure largely a political matter. Of course, the situs of propery may tax it regardless of the citizenship, domicile, or residence of the owner, the most obvoius illustration being a tax on realty laid by the state in which the realty is located." Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S 340 (1954)
Domocile cannot be established without a coincience of living or having living in a place and voluntarily consenting to live there "permanently". Domicile is what is called the "seat" of your property. It is the "state" and the "government" you voluntarily nominate to protect your property and your rights. In effect, it is the "weapon" you voluntarily choose that will best protect your property and rights. The government cannot lawfully coerce you to choose a domicile in a place. A government that coereced you into choosing a domicile in their jurisdiction is engaging in a "protection racket" which is highly illegal. A coerced domicile is not a domicile of your choice and therefore lawfully confers no jurisdiction or rights upon the government. Domicile is a method of lawfully delegating authority to a "sovereign" to protect you. That delegation of authority causes you to voluntarily surrender some of your rights to that government in exchange for "Protection". That protection comes from the civil and criminal laws that the sovereign passes, because the purpose of all government and all law is "protection".
"Allegiance and protection [by the government from harm] are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance." Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S (21 Wall.) 162, 166-168 (1874)
All allegiance must be voluntary, which is why only consenting adults past the age of majority can have a legal domicile. Minors cannot choose a domicile, but by law assume the domicile of their parents. Incompetent or insane persons assume the domicile of their caregivers. It is perfectly lawful to have a domicile in a place OTHER than the place you currently live. Those who find themselves in this condition are called "transient foreigners" and the only laws they are subject to are the criminal laws in the place they are at.
You can choose a domicile any place you want. The only requirement is that you must ensure that the government or sovereign who controls the place where you live has received "reasonable notice" of your choice of domicile and of their corresponding obligation to protect you.
"There is a class of persons which cannot be, strictly speaking, included in either of these denominations of naturalized or native citizens, namely, the class of those who have ceased to reside [maintain a domicile] in their native country, and have taken up a permanent abode in another. These are domiciled inhabitants. They have not put on a new citizenship through some formal mode enjoined by the law or the new country. They are de facto, though not dejure, citizens of the country of their [new chosen] domicile." Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S 698 (1893)
We also include the definition of "situs” to help clarify its meaning:
"Situs. Lat. Situation; location; e.g. location or place of crime or business. Site; position; the place where a thing is considered, for example, with reference to jurisdiction over it, or the right or power to tax it. It imports fixedness of location. Situs of property, for tax purposes, is determined by whether the taxing state has sufficient contact with the personal property sought to be taxed to justify in fairness the particular tax. Town of Cady v. Alexander Const. Co., 12 Wis.2d 236, 107 N.W.2d 267, 270." Generally, personal property has its taxable "situs" in that state where owner of it is domiciled. Smith v. Lummus, 149 Fla. 660, 6 So.2d 625, 627, 628. Situs of a trust means place of performance of active duties of trustee. Campbell v. Albers, 313 Ill.App. 152, 39 N.E.2d 672, 676." [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1387]
Notice in the definition of "domicile" above and the absence of the word "consent" and replacing it with the word "intent" to disguise the true nature of what they are saying. Lawyers and politicians don't want you to know that they need your consent to make you into a "taxpayer" with a "domicile" within their jurisdiction, even though this is in fact the case.
An exhaustive academic treatise on the subject of domicile also candidly admits that there is no all encompassing definition for "domicile".
§57. Difficulty of Defining Domicile.-- The difficulty, if not impossibility, of arriving at an entirely satisfactory definition of domicile has been frequently commented upon. Lord Alvanley, in Somerville v. Somerville, praised the wisdom of Bynkershoek in not hazarding a definition; and Dr. Lushington, in Maltass v. Maltass, speaking of the various attempts of jurists in this direction, considered himself justified in the remarkable language of Hertius: "Verum in iis definiendis mirum est quam sudant doctores." Lord Chelmsford, speaking, as late as 1863, in the case of Moorhouse v. Lord, says: "The difficulty of getting a satisfactory definition of domicile, which will meet every case, has often been admitted, and every attempt to frame one has hitherto failed." [Treatise on the Law of Domicil, §57, pp. 93-98;M.W. Jacobs, 1887; Little Brown and Company
The above admission is not surprising, given the fact that the main purpose for inventing the concept of domicile is to infer or imply consent of the subject to the civil law that has never expressly been given in writing and cannot be proven to exist. No government or judge is going to give a definition, because then people would use that definition to prove that they DON'T have a domicile and that would destroy the source of all the government's civil and taxing authority over the people who employ the definition to break the chains that bind them to their tyrant rulers.
The concept of domicile we inherit primarily from the feudal Roman law system in which the king or emperor or lord claimed ownership over all territory entrusted to him or her by divine right. Everyone occupying said territory therefore became a "subject" of the king and owed him "allegiance" as compensation for the "privilege" or franchise associated with use of his property. That allegiance expressed itself as "tribute" paid to the king, which we know of today as "taxes". What were once "subjects" of the king in Great Britain and the Roman Empire are now called "citizens", and we fired the King when the Declaration of Independence declared all men equal. At that point, everyone became equal and the sovereign transitioned from the former King of England to "We the People" as individuals. Consequently, we no longer have a landlord and the government that serves us cannot therefore lawfully charge us "rent" for the use of the land or territory that we occupy if we own it.
"In the United States the people are sovereign, and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship." [Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 US 253 (1967)]
Even the author of the Law Of Nations, which is the document upon which the USA Constitution was based by the founding fathers, acknowledged that all civilizations are based upon compact and contract, called this contract the "social compact", and said that when the government fails to be accountable for the protection sought, those being protected have a right to leave said society.
The Law of Nations, Book I: Of Nations Considered in Themselves:
§ 223. Cases in which a citizen has a right to quit his country.
There are cases in which a citizen has an absolute right to renounce his country, and abandon it entirely — a right founded on reasons derived from the very nature of the social compact.
1. If the citizen cannot procure subsistence in his own country, it is undoubtedly lawful for him to seek it elsewhere. For, political or civil society being entered into only with a view of facilitating to each of its members the means of supporting himself, and of living in happiness and safety, it would be absurd to pretend that a member, whom it cannot furnish with such things as are most necessary, has not a right to leave it.
2. If the body of the society, or he who represents it, absolutely fail to discharge their obligations [of protection] towards a citizen, the latter may withdraw himself. For, if one of the contracting parties does not observe his engagements, the other is no longer bound to fulfil his; as the contract is reciprocal between the society and its members. It is on the same principle, also, that the society may expel a member who violates its laws.
3. If the major part of the nation, or the sovereign who represents it, attempt to enact laws relative to matters in which the social compact cannot oblige every citizen to submission, those who are averse to these laws have a right to quit the society, and go settle elsewhere. For instance, if the sovereign, or the greater part of the nation, will allow but one religion in the state, those who believe and profess another religion have a right to withdraw, and take with them their families and effects. For, they cannot be supposed to have subjected themselves to the authority of men, in affairs of conscience;3 and if the society suffers and is weakened by their departure, the blame must be imputed to the intolerant party; for it is they who fail in their observance of the social compact — it is they who violate it, and force the others to a separation. We have elsewhere touched upon some other instances of this third case, — that of a popular state wishing to have a sovereign (§ 33), and that of an independent nation taking the resolution to submit to a foreign power (§ 195). [The Law of Nations, Book 1, Section 223, Vattel; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/LawOfNations/vattel_01.htm#§%20224.%20Emigrants]
If you want to provide unambiguous legal notice to the state of your choice to disassociate with them and become a "transient foreigner" in the place where you live who is not subject to the civil laws, you can use this free form:
Legal Notice of Change of Domicile
We emphasize that there is no method other than domicile available in which to consent to the civil laws of a specific place. None fo the following conditions, for instance, may form a basis for a prima facie presumption that a specific human being consented to be civilly governed by a specific municipal government:
1. Simply being born and thereby becoming a statutory "national" (per 8 U.S.C 1101(a)(21) of a specific country is NOT an exercise of personal discretion or an express act of consent
2. Simply living in a physical place WITHOUT choosing a domicile there is NOT an exercise of personal discretion of an express act of consent.
CONSENT is what creates the "persons" or "individual" who is the only proper subject of government civil law.
Citizenship, Domicile and Tax Status PDF
Why Domicile and Becoming a Taxpayer Require Your Consent