Jaffrey woman is asking for help to avoid US District Court jury duty

[J’raxis 270145]

You missed 28 USC 3002(15)(a) where: The term "United States" is defined as a corporation.

I didn't miss that. I said that these definitions of "United States"—all three of them—only apply to chapter 176. I was then pointing out that (b) and (c) are interesting because those refer to a "United States" themselves, which must be another definition outside chapter 176—or, (b) and (c) are recursive nonsense, referring to the very term which they seek to define.

Further in 1945 in the supreme court decision 324 U.S. 652 the following was determined, (once and for all, as I understand the court has refused to overturn itself) Here it is: "The term "United States" may be used in any one of several sense. 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 to the United States [672] extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.*6*   Please see foot note *6* for understanding.

Sure. That sounds more or less like the conventional definition of "United States"—the territory labeled as such on a map, or the government (the sovereign) thereof.



My reason for pointing this out is that your assertion that because "United States" in chapter 176 can refer to a federal corporation, that this means that the term "United States citizen" as used anywhere makes you a citizen of some kind of "corporate government." The logic here is flawed.

But I do like the idea of calling oneself a citizen—not just a resident—of New Hampshire, instead of a citizen of the United States. It emphasizes that one refuses to have anything to do with the federal government.

[armlaw]

But I do like the idea of calling oneself a citizen—not just a resident—of New Hampshire, instead of a citizen of the United States. It emphasizes that one refuses to have anything to do with the federal government.
[/quote]

May of us believe that Article 30, Part II of the New Hampshire constitution has a more specific definition as a sovereign "inhabitant". of what , the Republic! As guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4. For those of "dual" citizenship the supreme has several cases covering the options one may choose. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 has a very specific definition of a sovereign and also refers to the Massachusetts constitution and the fact we are a government of law and not a government of man.  I'd commend that case as well as several others to study for understanding of your options as free human beings, not slaves to any form of corporate government.