This article is part of a structured series based on the work of John Quade. Each installment builds on the previous one. If you’re new here, I strongly recommend starting with the Series Introduction, which explains the purpose, scope, and proper way to read this work.
❓ A Question That Breaks the Spell
During John Quade’s speech, a voice from the audience interrupts:
“What kind?”
The room laughs — but Quade doesn’t.
Because that single question exposes one of the most carefully obscured realities in modern governance:
Status determines jurisdiction — and most people do not know their own.
We are taught to believe that “citizen” is a single, simple category.
It is not.
📜 Words That Carry Legal Weight
In everyday language, words are flexible.
In law, words are weapons.
Terms like citizen, resident, domicile, and subject are not interchangeable — and treating them as such has consequences.
Quade’s central claim is this:
At law, most people are not operating as sovereign individuals, but as legal persons with assigned status.
To understand that claim, we must slow down and define terms.
🏛️ Citizen of What?
Historically, a Citizen of a State was understood as:
- A member of a political community
- Owing allegiance to principles, not administrators
- Possessing standing under common law
By contrast, a Citizen of the United States (in the modern statutory sense) functions as:
- A federal political status
- Defined by legislation
- Subject to congressional jurisdiction
Quade argues that this shift — subtle in language — is monumental in effect.
One status implies rights.
The other operates by privileges.
🏠 Resident vs. Domiciled
Another quiet substitution occurs here.
A resident is:
- Someone who lives in a place
- Often temporarily
- Subject to local rules and oversight
A person domiciled in a place:
- Claims it as their permanent home
- Establishes their own standing
- Is not merely passing through
Quade points out that modern systems prefer residents — because residents are easier to regulate.
This is why forms, registrations, and licenses repeatedly ask about residency, not sovereignty.
🧑⚖️ Standing: Who Can Speak?
In court, the most important question is not what happened, but:
Who has standing to speak?
Standing is not automatic.
It depends on:
- Status
- Capacity
- Jurisdiction
Quade cites a harsh reality:
If you do not assert your rights in person, the court has no obligation to recognize them.
This is why representation, substitution, and administrative appearance matter.
🧠 The Administrative Person
Modern governance relies heavily on what Quade describes as the administrative person:
- Registered
- Identified
- Documented
- Tracked
This person exists comfortably inside systems of benefit, regulation, and enforcement — but rarely touches common-law standing.
It is efficient.
It is orderly.
And it is not the same thing as a self-governing man or woman.
🔄 How Status Is Chosen
Crucially, Quade does not argue that status is assigned by force.
He argues it is chosen by participation:
- Applying
- Registering
- Accepting benefits
- Operating under licenses
Each act reinforces the same legal identity.
Status, once reinforced, becomes difficult to challenge — not because it is lawful, but because it is familiar.
🩸 Why This Matters More Than Ever
Status determines:
- What rights are recognized
- What privileges are taxed
- What protections apply
- What remedies are available
Misunderstood status leads to misplaced outrage — anger at outcomes rather than examination of foundations.
Quade’s warning is direct:
You cannot change the system while continuing to operate under the status it assigns you.
🔚 Closing Clause — Transition to Part IV
Understanding citizenship, residency, and legal status reveals where one is placed within the system.
But placement alone does not explain why the system is obeyed so completely, defended so emotionally, or questioned so rarely.
At some point, the discussion must move beyond documents, classifications, and jurisdictional labels, and ask a quieter, more uncomfortable question:
What gives law its authority in the minds of people?
In the next article, Part IV — Law Is Religion, we will explore how modern legal systems came to function not merely as governance mechanisms, but as belief structures — complete with rituals, intermediaries, obedience, and punishment.
Not to condemn law.
Not to reject order.
But to understand the psychological and spiritual foundations that cause authority to be accepted even when it conflicts with conscience.
Only by seeing what law is can one decide how, when, and why to engage with it.
— Next: Part IV: Law Is Religion