Cameo,
Though disagreeing with you, I respectfully submit:
While I realize your ego gets in the way and you have some complex in needing to be the "final authority",
You wish: I have work to do; discussion of this has been requested by more than one other group. Neither of the above is the case: there is just a lot to relate, massive amounts of things to be said. Every item mentioned triggers more details. This is a "practice area". You mistake being busy for your own problems.
You are funny and entertaining, BTW
I can assure you that my words come from legal descriptions, procedures, and requirements.
The documentation can be found.
Most people show their sources: it is customary to do so when challenged. Oh, well, more indication of inexperience with group discussions.
You constantly have the drive to push your agenda onto anything else that is said. That is by using the SQUARE PEG INTO A ROUND HOLE technique.
I have no intention of "arguing" with you.
Fine: don't argue at all; sound policy. I'll continue on without you.
You're driving off topic anyway: If you want to discuss SOVEREIGN CITIZENSHIP, start a topic on it. Telling off someone ON TOPIC for disagreeing with your OFF TOPIC AGENDA violates the basic rules of debate.
To answer the question you brought up (more or less close TO TOPIC) of the "citizen of heaven" argument as a defense:
The "citizen of heaven" argument is distinct from the discussion of Sovereign Citizenship.
The "citizen of heaven" argument that you suggested was tried, early on, and it lost.
The "citizen of heaven" argument is actually touched on in the "standard method" (from the textbook). And the reason that the "citizen of heaven" argument is considered, is that while it is deemed irrelevant for your intended argument (jurisdictional conflict based on citizenship), it goes towards establishing, that the appellant (you are on appeal by now, following your logic) is religious.
Under the "citizen of heaven" argument you are POSSIBLY qualified for either the I-O, I-A-O or IV-D Classifications [Conscientious Objector or Minister] by establishing your ministry background. But the "citizen of heaven" argument is far from all you need to establish your "burden of proof" that you are a minister. (and that is what this is all about.)
If the "citizen of heaven" argument were to be admitted at all, under other circumstances, it would be relegated to Church Law. Most objects of Church Law are ruled out from consideration under Secular law. This is because of the legal doctrine of Ecclesiastical Abstention. (Ironically: this is part of the Church Law Shield which protects religion).
The audience that must be convinced (SSS board, judges, prosecutors) will not admit the "citizen of heaven" argument to be a disqualifying feature due to citizenship.
Your tribunal now tells you to "move on": you are still viewed as a citizen of the USA, subject to the SSS rulings.
You will have to have more and different arguments. The "citizen of Heaven" argument has not even scratched the surface of your burden of proof.
That is because you must have further proof of the ministry than the "citizen of heaven" argument: works are required. Pioneering, being a servant, full-time ministry are the usual requirements. And that is exactly how I won my case.
If you persist in pushing the "citizen of Heaven" argument beyond this point, you will lose and perhaps your sanity will be questioned. A COMPETENCY HEARING is not the desired objective here. You can add Mental Insufficiency to Sovereign Citizenship as undesired or dubious defense strategies.
Mustang, @ your service
