HOW TO: How Judges and the Administrative State PROTECT and DESTROY the CONSTITUTIONAL Separation Between PUBLIC and PRIVATE

By ftsig-admin | September 22, 2026

Source:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025, Section 3
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf

1. Justice

The need for separation begins with the definition of “justice” itself:

Justice, as a moral habit, is that tendency of the will and mode of conduct which refrains from disturbing the lives and interests of others, and, as far as possible, hinders such interference on the part of others. This virtue springs from the individual’s respect for his fellows as ends in themselves and as his co equals. The different spheres of interests may be roughly classified as follows: body and life; the family, or the extended individual life; property, or the totality of the instruments of action; honor, or the ideal existence; and finally freedom, or the possibility of fashioning one’s life as an end in itself. The law defends these different spheres, thus giving rise to a corresponding number of spheres of rights, each being protected by a prohibition. . . . To violate the rights, to interfere with the interests of others, is injustice. All injustice is ultimately directed against the life of the neighbor; it is an open avowal that the latter is not an end in itself, having the same value as the individual’s own life. The general formula of the duty of justice may therefore be stated as follows: Do no wrong yourself, and permit no wrong to be done, so far as lies in your power; or, expressed positively: Respect and protect the right.

[Readings on the History and System of Common Law, Second Edition, 1925, Roscoe Pound, p. 2]

This is why judges are called “justices”. For details on “Justice”, see:

What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003, Section 3: The Meaning of “Justice”
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “Justice”
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/justice.htm
Sovereignty and Freedom Topic Page, Section 7.4: Justice-Family Guardian Fellowship
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Freedom.htm

The main purpose of establishing government itself is “justice”

“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”

[The Federalist No. 51 (1788), James Madison]

“Justice” therefore BEGINS with the government protecting your right to be left alone, and especially BY THEM.

You begin as PRIVATE. You or your PRIVATE property can only become PUBLIC with your EXPRESS consent.

“Quod meum est sine me auferri non potest.
What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent. Jenk. Cent. 251. Sed vide Eminent Domain.

Id quod nostrum est, sine facto nostro ad alium transferi non potest.
What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Dig. 50, 17, 11. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by a judgment of a competent tribunal.”

[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

2. Injustice

Being disturbed rather than left alone means:

Being treated as PUBLIC or a PUBLIC OFFICER without your consent. See Form #05.037.
Duties being imposed upon “citizens” or “residents” NOT related to voting or jury service.
Being treated as a statutory “citizen” or “resident” even though you never expressly consented or not being allowed to surrender the “benefits” of these civil statuses and become a “non-resident non-person” WITHOUT becoming a privileged statutory “alien”.
Having legal obligations imposed upon you through the PUBLIC statutory civil law that you didn’t consent to or can’t lawfully consent to. See Form #05.003. For instance, duties to buy car or health insurance or pay income taxes.
Becoming the target of government enforcement even though you haven’t demonstrably hurt anyone. Law is force, and it only acquires the “force of law” AFTER an injury is PROVEN on the record of a court. This is called “standing”. See Form #05.032.

Freedom is impossible without PRIVATE property and the equality (in relation to government), sovereignty, and the autonomy that these things provide. See Form #05.033.

3. Enforcing Justice and Separation

“Justice” as the main origin of the separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE is implemented by the following authorities:

1. Fifth Amendment: Right to exclude aspect of absolute ownership of private property. This allows you do deny government control, regulation, or taxation of you and your private property. See:

Laws of Property, Form #14.018
https://sedm.org/lawsofproperty

2. Standing Doctrine: Forbids government/judicial interference with activities unless there has been a demonstrable injury to SPECIFIC government/public propertyPUB or officers. See:

Writing Conventions On This Website, Section 1.1: Two Contexts for Legal Information, FTSIG
https://sedm.org/reference/writing-conventions-on-this-website/#1._Foundational

3. Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine: Forbids compelling the surrender of private constitutional rightsPRI in exchange for government public privilegesPUB. See:

DOCTRINE: Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine applied to Federal and State Income Taxation, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/doctrine-unconstitutional-conditions-doctrine-applied-to-federal-and-state-income-taxation/

4. Clearfield Doctrine: Requires government to surrender sovereign immunity and operate in equity whenever it engages in proprietary activities.

5. Anti‑Commandeering Doctrine: Government cannot compel private personsPRI to perform PUB functions.

6. Major Questions Doctrine: Limits administrative expansion into PRIVATE domains.

7. Void‑for‑Vagueness: Protects PRIVATE personsPRI from arbitrary PUB enforcement.

8. Nondelegation Doctrine: Prevents uncontrolled PUB power drift.

9. Officer‑Suit Doctrine: This is the enforcement mechanism that makes PUB/PRI separation real.

Ex parte Young (1908): Allows suits against officers acting unconstitutionally or ultra vires. This bypasses sovereign immunity entirely.
Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949): Distinguishes:
- sovereign acts (immune)
- unconstitutional or ultra vires acts (not immune)
Dugan v. Rank (1963): Clarifies when officer suits are allowed even if the relief affects the sovereign.
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center (2015): Reaffirms that equitable relief is available to enforce federal limits.
Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992): Confirms that injunctive relief is available against federal officers.
The above remedy ties into the previous remedies as follows:

Doctrine	PUB/PRI Function	Requires
Fifth Amendment	Protects PRIVATE propertyPRI	Requires officer suits to enforce takings boundaries
Standing	Limits PUB interference	Requires officer suits to block ultra vires actions
Unconstitutional Conditions	Protects PRIVATE rightsPRI	Requires injunctive relief against coercive PUB conditions
Clearfield	Forces government into equity when proprietary	Requires equitable remedies to enforce private‑law duties

4. DESTROYING Justice and Separation:

1. Sixteenth Amendment: Implements taxation as a proprietary power on government/public property that incentivizes judges and the administrative state to commit large scale identity and property laundering.

The Sixteenth Amendment is interpreted as authorizing taxation of public officesPUB, public franchisesPUB, and public privilegesPUB.
Courts treat this proprietary taxation power as if it were sovereign, which incentivizes identity laundering (private humanPRI → statutory personPUB).
The Amendment itself does not “implement taxation as a proprietary power.” Rather, courts interpret it in a way that:
- collapses the PUB/PRI distinction
- treats proprietary franchise participation as sovereign taxable capacity
- encourages administrative agencies to classify private personsPRI as public officesPUB
More at:
Journey to Sixteenth Amendment, Fed Reserve, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/history/journey-to-16a-fed-reserve-nnot/

2. Domicile: Judicial invention that implements civil statutory law as a proprietary power.

It is used to attach a private personPRI to civil statutory law (a proprietary system).
Domicile is the attachment mechanism that:
- converts private propertyPRI into statutory propertyPUB
- converts private personsPRI into civil statutory personsPUB
- creates the appearance of compulsory jurisdiction

More at:

Why Domicile and Becoming a Taxpayer Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
http://sedm.org/domicile

3. Sovereign Immunity: A judicially invented doctrine not in the constitution that is misapplied

Abused to protect and expand proprietary powers such as the civil statutory law and income taxation.
The destructive mechanism is not simply “misapplication.” It is immunity laundering:
- proprietary acts (Clearfield private‑corporate capacity) → are reclassified as sovereign acts → and then shielded by sovereign immunity
This collapses the PUB/PRI boundary.
This is remedy laundering: PRIVATE remedy → PUBLIC immunity → no judicial review.

More at:

Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “sovereign immunity”
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/SovereignImmunity.htm

4. Standing Inversion: Treating PRIVATE propertyPRI as PUBLIC propertyPUB

Standing is supposed to protect PRIVATE personsPRI by requiring injury to PUBLIC propertyPUB.
But courts invert it:
- They treat private propertyPRI as if it were public propertyPUB.
- This allows enforcement without evidence of injury to PUBLIC propertyPUB.
- It destroys the PUB/PRI separation.
This is injury laundering.

5. Benefits‑Coercion Laundering: Turning voluntary franchises into compulsory obligations

The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine forbids coercion.
But agencies invert it:
- They treat voluntary benefitsPUB as compulsory obligationsPUB.
- They treat refusal as injury to PUBLIC propertyPUB.
- They treat acceptance as consent to PUB capacity.
- This is consent laundering.