This framework proposes that there are two distinct jurisdictions operating simultaneously — and understanding which one you're in changes everything about how the rules apply to you.
The Two Realms
- Living men and women
- Inherent/natural rights
- Common law and equity
- Outside federal administrative law
- Pre-14th Amendment understanding
- State citizens (of the several states)
- Legal fictions / "persons"
- Rights granted by government
- Statutory and administrative law
- Under District of Columbia jurisdiction
- Post-14th Amendment citizenship
- "Citizens of the United States"
The Term "United States"
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that "United States" has multiple meanings:
"The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution." — Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
- The federal government — as a sovereign entity
- Federal territory — D.C., territories, federal enclaves
- The Union — the collective states under the Constitution
When a statute says "United States," which meaning applies? In many federal statutes, it refers primarily to federal territory — the District of Columbia and federal possessions. The states of the Union may be legally "foreign" to this "United States."
Historical Foundation
"It is not a rule upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." — Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796)
This early case articulates a fundamental principle: In their natural state, people are bound only by natural law — not by institutions they haven't consented to.
Have you consented to be bound by particular laws? And what evidence of that consent exists? This is where conscious vs. unconscious agreements becomes critical.
Comparison Table
| Aspect | The Private | The Public |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Common law, equity, law of nations | Statutory, administrative, regulatory |
| Constitutional Basis | Pre-14th Amendment; state citizens | Post-14th Amendment; federal citizens |
| Status | Living men and women; sovereigns | Corporate fictions; "persons" |
| Name Format | Upper/lowercase (John Doe) | ALL CAPITALS (JOHN DOE) |
| Rights Source | Inherent, unalienable, from Creator | Granted by government, can be regulated |
| Contracts | Must have genuine consent | May be implied or presumed |
The Trust Framework
Some theorists view the relationship through a trust structure:
- Grantor/Settlor — Creates the trust
- Trustee — Manages trust assets
- Beneficiary — Benefits from the trust
- Res — The assets/property
- You (living) = Grantor
- Government = Trustee
- You should be = Beneficiary
- Legal name = Res
A private trust would be one not operating under federal statutory law — potentially "foreign" to the "United States" in the territorial sense.
Practical Application
- Is this common law or statutory jurisdiction?
- What law governs this contract?
- Are they addressing you or your entity?
- Is your name in ALL CAPS?
- Under what jurisdiction is this proceeding?
- Am I the human or the "person"?
- What's the nature of my consent?
- What agreements have I entered?
The public realm operates on covert contracts — agreements you may have entered without realizing. Understanding the private/public distinction helps you see which agreements you may be subject to.
Limitations and Warnings
This framework is contested. Key limitations:
- Court resistance — Many judges actively reject these arguments
- "Sovereign citizen" label — Can lead to harsher treatment
- Selective acceptance — Some aspects may be valid, others not
- Practical power — Even if correct, enforcement may not follow
The value is in understanding — seeing the system more clearly, asking better questions, understanding potential defenses. It's less useful as "magic phrases" to avoid obligations.