Political Choice

Image via Wikipedia

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Baker v  Carr that federal courts were incapable of answering a “political question”.  This raises the possibility that if a sophisticated defendant based his defense on the presence of a “political question,” the federal courts might be precluded from hearing or deciding the case.

I’ve therefore become a student of the concept of “political”.  Political choice, political decisions, political argument, political doctrine are on my radar.

What follows is a Findlaw search of the USSC (US Supreme Court) data base for highlights of all USSC cases that used the term “political choice”.  Note that the concept of “political choice” did not reach the USSC until A.D. 1953.  It seems odd that the concept of “political choice” did not reach the Supremes for the first 160 years of our country’s history.

But there is evidence (28 USC 81-131) that suggests that a set of territorial “states” may have been created in A.D. 1948 as an alternative to the States of the Union.  I believe that slowly, over the course of the next 20 years, these “territorial states” completely supplanted the governments of the States of the Union.  If I’m right, since A.D. 1948, there’s been a new and fundamental “political choice” for the people of The United States of America:  whether they wish to transact within a State of the Union or “in this state” (the “territorial states”).

I begin to suspect that “political choice” may be synonymous with “choice of venue” and “choice of law”.  When you make a political choice as to whether you will transact within the venue of The State or “in” the venue of “this state” you are also choosing the LAW to which you consent to be subject.

In fact, I begin to suspect that if you don’t expressly declare any transaction that you enter in to to be within the a venue (county) within The State (of the Union), the system will presume from your silence that you’ve “chosen” to transact “in this state”.

I even suspect that your first “political choice” in most transactions may be your ADDRESS.  I.e., if you voluntarily choose to use an address like:

44 S. Oak St.

Dallas TX 75044

you may be presumed to have made a “political choice” to transact in a venue of “in this state” and have made a “choice of law” to be subject to the laws or regulations of “this state”.

On the other hand, if you’d chosen to use the address

44 S. Oak Street

The City of Dallas

The County of Dallas

The State of Texas

The United States of America

I suspect that you might’ve expressed your “political choice” to transact within a venue of The State of Texas and thus have made a “choice of law” to be subject to the laws of The State of Texas.

If my previous suspicions are roughly correct, the system is geared to presume that all of your transactions take place “in this state” and will only recognize transactions “within The State” with great reluctance, and then, only after you’ve gone to some great effort to dot all your “i’s” and cross all your “t’s”.  For example, even if you change the addresses on your mail from “this state” to “The State,” you might still be presumed to transact “in this state” if you don’t also change the “address card” that’s kept on you at the local Post Office.  There are wheels within wheels.

In fact, if I were filling out a USPS address card, I might even change the heading from “Address Card” (if that’s what it says) to “Political Choice of Venue Card”.  Heck, when I stop to think about it, I might even make up my own form to submit to the Post Office.

But if you can learn how to create admissible evidence that you transact exclusively “within The State” and if you can properly manifest your political choice to do so in virtually each and every one of your transactions, then—by virtue of that “political choice”—you might be able to evade much of the power and regulations of the purported “government” of “this state”.

The two green-highlighted statements below are not true “tautologies” in that they do not precisely represent “universal truths”.  That is, not all “political choices” are “choices of venue” or a “choice of law”.

On the other hand, the highlighted sections are “tautologies” in the sense that each term is (almost) synonymous and (almost) equal to each other term.

In any case, I suspect that these highlighted statements of “equivalence” (or at least, close similarity) are fundamentally and pragmatically important and pretty much “true”.  In fact, I suspect that a complete grasp of the following principles might be a very big step forward in coping with “this state”:

1) “political choice” = “choice of venue” = “choice of law”

It’s yet not absolutely clear to me, but I strongly suspect that NO ONE can deny or refute my “political choice”.  I may be responsible for my “political choices,” but I doubt that anyone can prevent me from making those choices.  If so, I strongly suspect that the “system” of “this state” may be dedicated to employing a multitude of tricks and devices (SSN cards, drivers licenses, bank accounts, addresses, citizenship, etc.) to allow “this state” to presume, rather than expressly determine, my “political choice of venue”.

If it’s true that I, and only I, can make my own “political choices,” then the following “equivalence” might also be roughly correct:

2) “conflict of law” = “conflict of venue” = “conflict (or perhaps denial of) political choice”.

Thus, if “this state” were to try to compel me into its venue while I expressly declared my “political choice of venue/law” to be within The State, there would seem to be a simultaneous “conflict of law and of venue”.

I know that “conflicts of law” are a recognized phenomenon in the legal system.  Thus, I know that “conflicts of law” are legal and can take place.  I know that “conflicts of law” can legitimately occur in litigation if one party is in “Illinois” (this state) and another party in “Texas” (this state). The guy in Illinois will claim that Illinois law controls the lawsuit; the guy in Texas will claim that Texas law will control.  This conflict of law will be resolved to determine which “state’s” laws will control the outcome of a particular case.

It’s not hard to see this example of “conflict of law” is very much like a “conflict of “venue”.

However, the hypothetical “conflict of law” that I just described was between two administrative areas of “this state”. I.e., I believe that while “The State of Texas”  and “The State of Illinois” are the proper names to signify two States of the Union (each such State loosely referred to as “The State”), I believe that “Texas” (“TX,” “STATE OF TEXAS”) and “Illinois” (“IL,” “STATE OF ILLINOIS”) are the names to signify the “territories” and/or “territorial states” loosely referred to as “this state”.

It’s not clear to me whether a “conflict of law” between The State of Texas and The State of Illinois might raise a political question (which, under Baker v Carr, the courts could not resolve). I am about 90% confident that there is no “conflict of law” between the laws of “Texas” and of “Illinois” because both are mere administrative districts of the same, singular, “this state”.

But I strongly suspect that a conflict of law between “The State of Texas” (The State) and “Illinois” (this state), would raise a political question that the courts could not answer. Likewise, I strongly suspect that a conflict of law between “The State of Texas” (The State) and “Texas” (this state) would raise a political question that the courts could not hear or resolve.

Thus, there may be no conflict of “political choices” in the previous example of “Texas” vs. “Illinois”.  Both parties (one from “this state” Illinois and the other from “this state” Texas) have seemingly agreed that they are without any of the States of the Union.

For now, it appears that the political choice is between The State (of the Union) and “this state”.  The choice between the law of The State of Illinois (The State) and the law of The State of Texas (The State) would be a “political choice”.  The choice between the law of Illinois (this state) and The State of Texas (The State) would also probably be a “political choice”.  I.e., any “choice” of venue that involved at least one State of the Union (or county within) would probably implicate a “political choice”.

But my gut suggests that a “choice” between the laws of “this state” Illinois and “this state” Texas, would certainly be a “choice” and might even result in a “conflict of law”—but would not constitute a “political choice” so long as neither alternative included a State of the Union (The State).

Without evidence, I’d bet that the “choice of law” between “Illinois” and “Texas” might be characterized as an “administrative” (rather than “political”) choice.   Again, I have no evidence to support that suspicion, so you should not believe that description. But you should consider it . . . especially since I’m going to use the term “administrative choice” to distinguish from “political choice” until I see authority that the term “administrative choice” is mistaken.

This previous analysis suggests that there might be two levels of “conflict of law”:  an administrative conflict of law “in this state” (between “this state” of Illinois and “this state” of Texas) and a “political conflict of law” (??) (such as between “this state” of Illinois and The State of Texas (The State)).

In the first instance (“Illinois” vs “Texas”) the “choice of law” might be described as “inclusive” since both the territory of “Illinois” and the territory of “Texas” are of “this state”.

In fact, all manifestations of “this state” might be of a single, common, national (or even international) “venue”. That possibility is supported by Texas Penal Code 1.04(d) which describes the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” as follows: “This state includes the land and the water and the air space above the land and the water over which this state has power to define offenses.” Note that this definition of the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” includes no borders. “This state” exists anywhere and everywhere that people accept “this state’s” definitions. As found in the Texas Penal Code, “this state” (seemingly, but not expressly of “Texas”) exists beyond the Red River and into Oklahoma, beyond the Rio Grand into Mexico, and beyond the Sabine River into Louisiana.

In fact, the Texas Penal Code’s definition of the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” could extend all the way to Moscow, or the Moon or Mars. “This state” has no borders. It does not clearly end even at the (presumed) border with Mexico.  Thus, “this state” would seem to be a singular jurisdiction that not only covers the entire “United States” but, theoretically, covers the entire world.

If that were true, then “this state” would appear to be code for the New World Order and global governance.

That notion may seem farfetched to some, but it’s commonly known that one of the primary objectives of the New World Order and one-world government is to eliminate all “nation-states” and divide the world into economic “regions” (like the North American Union or the European Union, etc.).  The rationale for  eliminating nation-states is that all great wars are caused by nation-states. Given the existence of atomic weapons, great wars are no longer tolerable.  Therefore, if we eliminated all nation-states, we wouldn’t have to fear another great war—at least not of the organized, nuclear sort predicted for a WWIII.

If you want to eliminate the nation-states, you must eliminate their borders. The Texas Penal Code definition for territorial jurisdiction of “this state” recognizes no borders. Section 1.04(d) recognizes no borders of Texas or other adjacent states, of adjacent nation of Mexico, or even the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, Section 1.04(d) appears to be consistent with a fundamental objective of the New World Order: elimination of political borders.

Still sound farfetched? Well, what about our government’s refusal to protect this nation from an invasion by illegal aliens? What about Obama’s lawsuit against The State of Arizona to prevent that State from protecting itself against an invasion by illegal aliens?

What is the whole idea behind “illegal aliens” if not a recognition that “Mexico” is a nation-state that is distinct from the nation-state of “The United States of America”?  The whole idea behind “illegal aliens” is that there is a political border between these two nation-states.

On the other hand, the fundamental idea behind amnesty for illegal aliens and a refusal to protect The United States of America from invasion by millions of illegal aliens is that The United States of America and Mexico no longer exist as separate political entities but are simply administrative districts of “this state”. Thus, the people of Mexico are as free to emigrate from “this state” of Mexico into “this state” of Arizona or as is a citizen of “this state” of Illinois is free to emigrate into “this state” of California.

IF my conjecture is roughly correct, then “in this [global, universal] state,” everyone will be free to go wherever they want. Thus, “in this state,” every impoverished, ignorant SOB on the face of the earth will be free emigrate into what was once the nation-State called “The United States of America”. Under the guise of “this state,” The United States of America may be eliminated as a political entity and reduced to the status of a third world nation overrun by hoards of foreigners who, within the political context of The State, would be “illegal aliens”.

Again, the “conflict of law” between “this state” of Texas and “this state” of Illinois might be “administrative” rather than “political”.  If so, is it possible that all “conflicts of law” “in this state” are “administrative” and can be resolved by administrative, rather than judicial, process?

In the second hypothetical, we have a “conflict of law” between the laws of “this state” Illinois and of The State of Texas (“The State”).  However, this appears to be a “political [not “administrative”] conflict of law” in that it involves a at least one venue within a State of the Union.  More, although I have no evidence to support this suspicion, it’s at least conceivable that whenever there’s a “political conflict of law” (conflict between two or more venues within a State of the Union) that that conflict must be resolved in a judicial, rather than administrative, court.

In this second instance, unlike the “mutually inclusive” “venues” of “this state,” each of the venues within the States of the Union would be mutually exclusive.  I.e., The County of Cook within The State of Illinois would be just as exclusive from the The County of McHenry (also located within The State of Illinois) as from The County of Dallas located within The State of Texas.

Each “local venue” of a State of the Union appears to be absolutely exclusive from all the other venues/counties within the particular State of the Union as well as each of other county-venues located in all of the other States of the Union.

The idea that 1) each of the county-venues a State of the Union may be unique and not only mutually exclusive to all of the other county-venues of that particular State of the Union, but also mutually exclusive to each of the county-venues of all other States of the Union; and conversely, 2) all of the “venues” of “this state” are mutually inclusive—is supported in part by my own experience with extradition.  In A.D. 2002, I was extradited without warrant from “Dallas County” in “TX” by an administrative court order issued by a court of “Jefferson County” in “MO” (this state).  I’m not going to rehash my extradition right now, but in retrospect, let me pose the musical question, “How did some freakin’ judge in this state of MO cause me to be arrested in this state of TX without a warrant?”  Answer:  Easy.  “This state” of “MO” and “this state” of “TX” are part and parcel of a single NATIONAL (probably GLOBAL) “jurisdiction”.

Again, Texas Penal Code section 1.04 deals with “TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION”.  Subsection (d) defines the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” as follows:  “This state includes the land and the water and the air space above the land and the water over which this state had power to define offenses.”

I’ve repeatedly quoted that sub-section for a year or more to demonstrate 1) that this “territorial jurisdiction” has no geographic borders; and 2) that this “territorial jurisdiction” is purely a function of definitions.  I’ve been primarily fixated on the “definitional” foundation for “this state”.  I.e., if you accept the definitions made by the officials of “this state,” then you’re “in this state” and subject to “this state’s” territorial jurisdiction.  This implies that if you expressly reject their definitions (and offer a credible authority for your own alternative definitions), you should not be subject to the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”.

I commented repeatedly on the fact that the definition of the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” in 1.04(d) had no geographic borders.   “This state” of “TX” did not end at the Rio Grand (border with Mexico), or the Sabine River (border with The State of Louisiana) or Red River (border with The State of Oklahoma).  As defined at 1.04.(d) “this state” could extend into Mexico or Canada or Uganda, the Moon or Mars.  “This state” was anywhere and everywhere that people accepted “this state’s” power to define offenses.

Until now, I’ve found the lack of geographic borders to be fascinating and a little bewildering.  But I didn’t really “get it” until now.  “This state” doesn’t list any geographic borders because it doesn’t have any.  “This state” is a single, universal “venue” that covers the whole of not only the “United States” but the world, itself.

“This state” IS the New World Order.

Consider:  One of the principle objectives of the NWO is to eliminate all “nation-states” and all vestiges of “national” sovereignty.  If there is going to be a global government, then, by definition the “United States” will only be an administrative arena, but can’t have “national sovereignty”.  So long as any nation-state retains any national sovereignty, the NWO will be powerless to enforce its “supreme” will on that sovereign “nation”.

Geographic borders are a sin qua non for any nation-State.  Thus, the NWO must eliminate all geographic borders in order to eliminate all nation-States and “sovereign” nations.

Texas Penal Code 1.04(d) is simply a manifestation of our own treasonous government passing laws to eliminate our borders and thereby eliminate our status as nation-States, and sovereign States of the Union.

Why won’t your federal government protect this nation from the invasion by illegal aliens?  Because your President and Congress are a pack of treasonous whores who are working for the NWO rather than for the people and sovereign States (The States) of the Union.  The feds won’t protect and enforce our borders because, under the NWO, there will be NO BORDERS.  President Obama has reportedly ordered that Arizona be SUED for passing and enforcing laws to prevent the invasion of illegal aliens (Mexican “wetbacks”) into Arizona.  Why?  Because Obama and Co. deny that “Arizona” is a State of the Union. Obama & Co. regard “Arizona” as “this state” and a territory other than a State of the Union and therefore, “Arizona” has no right to restrict immigration by “illegal aliens” into “this state” of “AZ”.

All of this goes to venue and political choice of venue and political choice of law.

In this nation (“The United States of America”), our States of the Union are still very much “nation-states” and sovereigns.  But those States are built from counties.  It may be going too far to suggest that the de jure counties are “sovereigns”—but maybe not.

The point remains that if the NWO must destroy our national borders, it must also destroy the borders of the States of the Union, and it must ultimately destroy the borders of the de jure Counties that comprise each State of the Union.  If this line of conjecture is true, then it follows that one way to destroy our de jure County venues is to create a single, national “venue” called “this state”.  Instead of “The County of Uvalde” (within The State of Texas), we’ll have “UVALDE COUNTY” (“in this state”).  Instead of “The County of Volusia” (within The State of Florida), we’ll have “VOLUSIA COUNTY” (“in this state”).  Instead of “The County of Cook” (within The State of Illinois), we’ll have “COOK COUNTY” (“in this state”).

But.  All is not hopeless.

IF there are two available venues (The State and “this state”), you appear to have the right to choose which venue you wish to use to conduct your affairs.  You have a POLITICAL CHOICE OF “state” venue!  Likewise, IF there are two alternative county-venues (“The County of Uvalde” and “UVALDE COUNTY”), you appear to have the right to choose whichever venue you want to use to conduct your affairs.  You have a POLITICAL CHOICE OF “county” venue!

I can’t guarantee that the distinction between “The State” and “this state” is valid.  But I and some other very intelligent individuals have been exploring this dichotomy for most of a decade.  If we can’t absolutely prove that the dichotomy is true, we can say that we’ve found considerable evidence (see Title 28 USC 81-131, Texas Penal Code 1.04(d), Article 1.10.1 of The Constitution of the United States, etc.) to support the hypothesis.

In ten years, I’ve seen nothing to refute the “two-state” hypothesis—and so far as I know, neither has anyone else.

In addition to believing the “two-state” hypothesis, everything I’ve seen convinces me that the existing judicial system presumes that you have entered “this state” voluntarily.  The officials of “this state” presume that you have voluntarily entered “this state” and therefore voluntarily consented to be subject to “this state’s” jurisdiction.  Everything I’ve seen indicates that “this state” depends on the presumption that you have voluntarily left The State to transact your affairs “in this state”.   Everything I’ve seen indicates that (so far) the employees of “this state” can’t legally force or compel you to leave The State to enter into “this state”.

More, everything I’ve seen suggests that you entry into “this state” takes place on a “transaction-by-transaction” basis.  I.e., this morning you voluntarily go to the grocery store “in this state” to purchase some bread (made “in this state”) and pay for the bread with Federal Reserve Notes (the currency of “this state”).  For the duration of that voluntary transaction, you are presumed to have voluntarily entered into “this state” and you are therefore subject to “this state’s” jurisdiction.  However, when the transaction is concluded you can return to The State.  If you decide to voluntarily go to a movie “in this state” and pay for your tickets with FRNs (currency of “this state”), you will again be presumed to have voluntarily entered into “this state” for the duration of that transaction.

But, tomorrow morning, you might agree to sign a contract whose venue was expressly declared to be within The County of Dallas within The State of Texas.  Then, for the duration of that contract, you may be acting within the jurisdiction of The State.

I can’t prove it, but everything suggests that you were not forever “captured” the first time you unwittingly entered into “this state”.  If we’d been “forever captured” by “this state” the first time we stumbled in, you and I wouldn’t be considering these ideas today.  We would’ve been captured forever and long ago  by our birth certificates or So-So Security Numbers.

If we’d been “captured forever” by “this state” in the daze of our youth,  “this state” would not have to continue to rely on drivers licenses, bank account signature cards, gold fringed flags, etc., to capture us again and again here in our dotage.

IF it’s true that there is a “two-state” dichotomy between The State and “this state”; and,

IF it’s true that you can’t be forced to leave The State to enter into “this state”; then, it follows that:

You apparently have the right to make a POLITICAL choice to transact your affairs in either the venue of The State of the venue of “this state”.

You don’t have to be “in this state” unless you consent to go there voluntarily (or unwittingly).

On the face of it, that conclusion seems awfully naïve.  We can reasonably ask, Why th’ hell would “this state” give us a “political choice of venue”?  After all, aren’t all the cops, administrator and judges all employees of “this state” (they’re paid in FRNs)?  Isn’t it true that “this state” has assumed “de facto” control over virtually every office previously held within The State—or at least assumed control over every office that resembles those previously held within The State?

Yes—they have.

If the employees of “this state” have such predominant control over the machinery of government, why would they both to still give us a “political choice” to be “in” or “out” of “this state”?  Why not just lay down the hammer and tells the public, “Look you ignorant sonsabitches, you’re our slaves and you’d better start steppin’!”?

I think the answer may be 1) the “Perpetual Union” . . . 2) the oaths of office . . . and 3) UCC1-301 . . . 4) the right to keep and bear arms.

#4   “This state” can’t simply “lay down the hammer” in a society where at least 80 million Americans are still armed.  The vaunted American military couldn’t even handle Iraq, a nation about the size and population of Texas. If the US Military couldn’t take a country the size of Texas, how will they take a nation the size of The United States of America?  We the People are still too well armed for “this state” to openly assert its non-constitutional and treasonous power.  We are the “800 pound gorilla”—IF we ever find the motivation to get up off the couch.

#3) UCC1-301 (“Territorial Applicability”) allows for the parties to contracts to reach an “agreement” (which seems consistent with making a “political choice”) to rely on the laws of “this State” or “another State” even if the transaction bears no relation to whichever “State” is chosen.  Note that the UCC1-301 reference to “this State” strikes me as ambiguous

#2)  The employees of “this state” who occupy elective and some administrative offices are still obligated to take an Oath of Office that binds them to recognize and, under certain conditions, enforce the Constitutions of The States.  Although it’s common for many police officers to operate without having taken an oath of office to support and defend the State constitution, most judges are still bound by such oaths.  “This state” can’t easily imagine a procedure to remove the requirements for such Oaths from our State constitutions.  So long as the Oaths remain, the States of the Union are recognized and can be enforced by those who 1) identify themselves as beneficiaries of their State of the Union’s constitution; and 2) expressly declared their “political venue” to be within the State of the Union.

#1) Perhaps most importantly, The Organic Law of The United States of America was declared by the Congress in the revised statutes of A.D.1873-1875 to include four documents:  1) the “Declaration of Independence” (A.D. 1776); 2) The Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781); 3) The Northwest Ordinance (A.D. 1787); and 4) The Constitution of the United States (A.D. 1789).  Note that this declaration by Congress was made at least 5 years after the adoption of the 14^th Amendment.  Note that Congress recognized all four documents as “THE ORGANIC LAW”; that none of those documents had rendered the earlier documents obsolete or invalid; that such “ORGANIC LAW” is still the LAW today.

The Declaration (A.D. 1776) created 13 nation-States.  The Articles (A.D. 1781) created a Union of those 13 nation-State that was declared to be PERPETUAL.  Later (A.D. 1789), The Constitution recognized the PERPETUITY of that Union when the Preamble declared that a purpose for the Constitution was to “form a more perfect Union”.  Because the Union was PERPETUAL, the Constitution could not and did not do away with that PERPETUAL Union of States created by the Articles; the Constitution merely claimed to recognize and make that Union “more perfect”.

The Union of the several “United States” cannot be disposed of or eliminated.  That Union is perpetual.

This perpetuity is significant for four reasons:

First, the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781 created a confederacy and  Union that are styled “The United States of America”.  The confederacy might not be perpetual, but the Union was expressly declared to be so.

Second, the Preamble to The Constitution of the United States declares in part,

“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States States of America.”

Third, the “Supremacy Clause” (Article 6 Section 2 Clause 1) of The Constitution of the United States declares,

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the [several] United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State [of the Union] shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State [of the Union] to the contrary notwithstanding.” [Bracketed texts are my additions]

Fourth, the UN Treaty:

Therefore, given that the New World Order is being expanded and entered into by means of Treaties, and all Treaties by the US gov-co must be under the authority of the States of the Union, and given that the Treaty-making power is found in the Constitution that was designed for the benefit of “the United States of America,” then the treasonous whores in cathouse on the Potomac are prevented by constitutional law from enacting any treaties that would harm the perpetual Union.

I.e., if the Senate ratified any treaty that harmed the perpetual Union, then that Treaty would be void ab initio.  They can’t arbitrarily mandate the establishment of the New World Order within The United States of America without getting around the perpetual Union.

How do they get around the perpetual Union?

I think the answer may be by passing treaties that recognize the American people’s right to make a political choice as to whichever “state” and “venue” they want to enter into.

Because the Union is perpetual, our purported government can’t legally force us to leave the Union, nor can they arbitrarily dissolve that Union by means of treaties. Therefore, if they want us to enter the New World Order, they have to create devices and presumptions that allow us to “choose” to “voluntarily” abandon the Union to enter into “this state” and/or the New World Order.

Of course, no one in their right mind would abandon the perpetual Union (where we enjoy the status of individual sovereigns) to enter the New World Order (“this state”) where we suffer the status of being serfs, subjects, slaves and even animals. So, I suspect that the gov-co has “legalized” any number of devices by means of which they can presume from our mere conduct that you and I have “chosen” to abandon the Union to enter into “this state”. Did you take a SS card? Then you are presumed to have entered into “this state”. If you took a drivers license, you’ll be presumed to have made the “political choice” to enter into “this state”. Do you use credit cards or Federal Reserve Notes to discharge your debts? Then you’ll be presumed to have voluntarily made the “political choice” to abandon the Union and enter into “this state”.

All of these acts/conduct can be “legally” by gov-co used as a basis to presume that we’ve chosen to leave the Union to enter into this state. The presumptions are based on our mere conduct so as to avoid the necessity of asking us if we were truly willing to voluntarily make the political choice to leave the Union to enter into “this state”. The gov-co must rely on presumptions based on mere conduct because only a fool would knowingly and expressly choose to leave the Union (where we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and therefore individual sovereigns/kings) to enter into “this state”/New World Order where we are without our Father YHWH Elohiym and therefore subjects.

To choose “this state,” is tantamount to turning our backs to the God of the Bible. The Bible makes clear that if we turn our backs to our Father, He will turn his back to us. If we turn back to Him, he will turn back to us.

All of which makes me realize that the choice between The State of the Union and “this state”/New World Order is not merely a political choice—it’s also, and even more fundamentally, a spiritual choice.  “This state” and the New World Order are all about commerce and the “love of money”. The God of the Bible warns that the love of money is the root of all evil. The God of the Bible is not recognized by “this state” and probably does not even exist “in this state”.

If so, then when we “choose” to enter into “this state” to go shopping with credit cards or Federal Reserve Notes, we are implicitly abandoning (at least temporarily) our status as men made in God’s image (we are “person” or “legal entities” “in this state”). Likewise, whenever we “choose” to enter into “this state”/New World Order, we also abandon the God-given, unalienable Rights first declared in the “Declaration of Independence”.

Insofar as we “choose” to abandon our God-given, unalienable Rights, we  may emulate the example of Esau who traded his birthright from God to his brother Jacob for a bowl of pottage. Later in the Old Testament, God twice declares that “Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated.” I don’t know why God hated Esau, but I believe the reason is that Esau “turned his back” on the birthright he received from God. Essau despised the birthright (blessings) from God and treated it with contempt. In despising God’s blessing, Esau unwittingly despised our Father YHWH Elohiym—who is described as a “jealous God”. I believe that because our Father YHWH Elohiym won’t put up with contempt from anyone, He therefore “hated” Essau.

But I’m not telling you what our Father thinks because I don’t know. I’m only telling you my interpretation of the facts relevant to Esau’s troubles. But if my interpretation of Esau’s problems and my observation of the similarity between Esau’s abandoning his “birthright” and America’s abandonment of their “unalienable (God-given) Rights are roughly correct, it can be both politically and spiritually “hazardous to your health” to leave the Union to enter into “this state”.

But here’s some potentially good news:

I’ve already hypothesized that we have a right of political choice to enter, or not enter, into “this state”. I haven’t yet nailed down authority to support that right, but I’m sure it exists. (See the list of court case highlights below.)

Now I see that the choice between The States of the Union and “this state”/New World Order is also a right of spiritual choice. If “this state” is god-less, Satanic or represents any god other than the God of the Bible, the right of religious freedom guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the federal Constitution (and within our State constitutions) should be absolute authority for me to “choose” to stay the Hell out of “this state”/New World Order.

I don’t want to enter “this state” because that’s the one where kids can’t pray in school; where sculptures of the Ten Commandments are removed from the courthouse lawns; where people are licensed to enter into three-party “marriage relationships” (two spouses & “this state”) rather than two-party marriages (husband & wife) as found in the Bible; where two men (or two women) plus “this state” can enter into marriage relationships; where debts are never paid with lawful money but only discharged with legal tender; where notions of right and wrong are replaced by profit and loss; where the only apparent “god” is currency. And so long as I have “freedom of religion,” “this state” can’t compel me to turn my back on God to enter into “this state”.

Moreover, I believe that “this state” doesn’t want to compel me to enter into “this state”. It wants me to voluntarily (if unwittingly) “choose” or at least assent to enter into “this state”.

Why?

Because, I believe that, at bottom, this entire conflict between The State and “this state” is evidence of a spiritual war that’s been raging for thousands of years. From a satanic perspective, the prize is not men’s bodies or even lives, but rather souls. Satan wins nothing if he puts a gun (or pitchfork) to my head and compels me to enter “this state” or even kills me. Satan’s object is to win my soul and that can only be won if I voluntarily choose to “turn my back on God”. Satan will tempt and trick me all day into abandoning the Union and my God-given, unalienable Rights. But in the end, I must voluntarily consent to and choose that abandonment. If I’m forced, I will not have “chosen” to turn my back on God. Under such circumstances, I’m still eligible for salvation.

So far as I know, there may be scores of devices that can be used to presume that you and I have voluntarily removed ourselves from the Union to enter into “this state”/New World Order.

Why so many devices?

Because, so far as I can tell, each transaction stands alone. That is, the fact that I have a drivers license may put me into “this state” whenever I drive or submit that license as my “identification”. But it has nothing to do with the transaction this morning when I bought some groceries. Likewise, neither my drivers license transactions or my former purchases of groceries have anything to do with whatever transactions I enter into tomorrow.

In essence, the gov-co has created scores of devices to presume from our conduct that we have chosen and consented to enter “this state”. But, given that the Union is perpetual, and that we are each a member of that Union, I suspect that we might be presumed to be within that Union virtually all of our lives—except for those individual transactions where we temporarily enter into “this state”.  I wouldn’t bet my life that this suspicion is correct, but it strikes me as plausible.

It is probably because this Union of The States is perpetual that it can’t be destroyed and therefore “this state” figuratively “overlays” The States.  As a result, at any given moment within the borders of the United States you could be within one of the States of the Union or you might be “in this state”. It’s something like a quantum mechanics: at any given moment, a particle might be perceived (presumed) to be in one “state” (mass) or another “state” (energy). Similarly, in our theory of political “quantum mechanics,” at any given moment, a “party” can be perceived (presumed) by gov-co to be in “this state” or within The State.

However, in quantum mechanics, determination of whether a particle is in the state of energy or the state of mass takes place purely in the mind of the observer. No one asks the particle if it choose to be energy or mass at any particular moment. On the other hand, in our theory of “political quantum mechanics,” the “particle” or “party” can both choose and declare whichever “state” it wants to be part of. If you’re silent, you leave the presumption up to the judge to decide if your are or are not “in this state”. But if you speak up and declare your political choice to be within The State, the judge (“observer”) should have to recognize and honor your choice.

If there’s no choice, it’s compulsory. No law can compel you to abandon the perpetual Union and enter into “this state” unless that law has violated the purpose of the Constitution seen in the Preamble and likewise violated the Supremacy Clause. I.e., any “law” that purports to mandatorily harm or destroy the perpetual Union is void.

Therefore, it appears to me that gov-co must allow you the political and spiritual choice to leave or stay within the Union and enter or reject “this state”.

Who is to decide which venue you occupy at any given moment?  You decide.  However, if you make no express political choice as to whichever venue you’re acting in, the current laws are such that you will be presumed to be “in this state”.  Similarly, if you transact any of your affairs in a way that your conduct implies “this state,” you’ll be presumed from your conduct to have voluntarily chosen to be act “in this state”.  The only way you can get into The State is to make an express political choice to be within that venue.

Note that when the “perpetual” Union was created by the Article of Confederation in A.D. 1781, there were no territories; there was no allowance for a “district (not exceeding ten Miles square)” to serve as “the Seat of the Government of the United States.” The perpetual Union and associated confederacy expressly styled “The United States of America” included—and still includes—only the several States.  Even today, “The United States of America” appears to include only the States of the Union but does not include territories, territorial states (this state) or Washington D.C..

I can’t prove this conclusion, but it appears obvious to me.  If I’m right, the implications are enormous.  For example, Washington D.C. is part of the singular/national “United States” but not part of “The United States of America”.  More, while the Union is “perpetual,” Washington D.C. is not.  More importantly, some say the use of the Zip Code is based on an administrative address system that emanates out of Washington D.C..  If that’s true, then the Zip Code is necessarily in the singular/national “United States” and “in this state”.  If you use the Zip Code, you’re “in this state” and in the singular/national “United States”.  Conversely, if you make the political choice to conduct your affairs within “The United States of America,” you’d better not use a Zip Code.

Likewise, if you want to stay out of “this state,” you’d better not use a Zip Code in your “political choice of address”.  Instead, you’d better use an address similar to that which I’ve previously suggested:

44 S. Oak Street

The City of Dallas

The County of Dallas

The State of Texas

The United States of America

And be especially careful to avoid use of any Zip Code since such “conduce” may give rise to the presumption that you have voluntarily chosen or assented to the venue of “this state”.

I’m considering creating an mailing label for all of my return addresses that starts with a line something like:  “Alfred Adask’s political choice of venue:” and then give the address.

In any case, given that there were no territories or Washington DC in the Articles of Confederation, and given that the perpetual Union was created by those Articles, then it appears that “The United States of America” may be a perpetual Union that includes only the States of the Union and never has or could include territories, territorial “states” or Washington D.C..

If a New World Order is truly being advanced then, by definition, that new, singular world government must have a fundamental purpose of eliminating all existing nation-states and “sovereigns”.  I.e., the NWO can’t rule over sovereign nations or sovereign individuals.  The NWO can only rule over subjects.

If the NWO’s fundamental purpose is to eliminate nation-states and other sovereigns, then it should be true (as previously supposed) that a fundamental NWO objective is to eliminate all geographic boundaries which help to define nation-states.  We see some evidence of this in Zip Codes which not only cross all State boundaries but also apply in territories and even foreign countries (Israel).

Given that most nation-states also have their own national currency, another fundamental NWO objective should be to create a single, global currency—a “world reserve currency”.  The NWO almost certainly sought to use the U.S. “Federal Reserve Notes” as the NWO’s global currency . . . until Saddam Hussein started selling Iraqi crude oil for euros circa A.D. 2000 and thereby tore a large new orifice in the NWO.  In A.D. 2003, the NWO—with George W. Bush leading the charge—attacked Iraq with a fury (“shock and awe”) and hung Saddam, but too late.  The dollar’s purchasing power (as measured on the US$ Index) slipped from 125 in A.D. 2000 to 86 today.  That’s a fall of almost 30% in 10 years.  More, that fall is measured against five other fiat, paper currencies that are also falling in purchasing power.  As measured against the price of gold, today’s paper dollar has lost about 75% of the purchasing power it had in A.D. 2000.

The significance of paper, fiat dollars is that, under Article 1.10.1 of The Constitution of the United States (A.D. 1789), that fiat currency is absolute anathema to the States of the Union, unconstitutional and an act of treason against the States of the Union.  The governments of the States of the Union cannot function consistently with Article 1.10.1 unless there is a gold- or silver-based currency in circulation.   “This state” appears to have been created for the primary purpose of allowing the use of “fiat, paper currency” that would’ve been deemed unconstitutional within the States of the Union.

Implication:  if you’re using Federal Reserve Notes to discharge your debts, by your conduct, you’re at least presumed to be transacting “in this state”.    Thus, 1) the use; 2) refusal to use; or 3) conditional use—of one currency or another is apparently deemed to constitute conduct which can be deemed evidence a “political choice”.

If you’re using FRN’s, you’re probably conceding to act “in this state”.  I suspect that this may be particularly important whenever you pay a filing fee for a lawsuit.  If you pay the fee in FRNs, you’ll be presumed to have made the “political choice” to sue in the venue of “this state” and thereby have made the political choice to be subject to the laws of “this state”.

I don’t yet know if it’s possible to overcome the political implications of the use of FRNs with an express disclaimer.  It may be that you can use the FRN’s conditionally—perhaps as a matter of “necessity” (a political argument) or “emergency” (another political argument)—if you expressly qualify your use of FRNs to take place within your politically chosen venue of The State.  Could be, but I have no supporting evidence.

But if you use FRNs without any other qualifier or conditional statement, you can bet you’ll be presumed to have voluntarily made the “political choice” to transact in the venue of “this state”.

You should at least be aware of the potential implications of using FRNs. You should be wary of using FRNs.

If the NWO is bent on eliminating all nation-states and sovereigns, it follows that the NWO will, by extension, necessarily seek to eliminate all county-venues.  By definition, the NWO must intend to do away with all LOCAL venues and subject the entire world to a single, global VENUE!

Damn!  “This state” IS the NWO.  Again, that’s why Texas Penal Code 1.04(d) has no geographic limits for the “territorial jurisdiction” of “this state”.  The “territorial jurisdiction” of “this state” is limitless—“global”—arguably “universal”—it potentially circles the whole world.

Damn.

We see evidence that suggests “this state’s” attempts to eliminate the people’s memory of the county-venues of The State in:

1) Differing names; the proper name of a de jure county of The State of Texas is almost certainly “The County of Dallas”.  The name of the “parallel” but de facto “county” of “this state” is probably “Dallas County”.

2) “Uniform” laws between states.

3) International Property Codes; International Building Codes.

I’m sure that if you’re involved in the administration of government the “county” level, once you start looking for them, you’ll find other “discrepancies” that indicate the existence of a de jure county venue of The State and a de facto county venue of “this state”.

It’s too soon to say with high confidence, but it does begin to appear that “this state” is the New World Order.  If that were true, then when manifesting your political choice of venue, you might want to say something like:

“1.  I declare under the pains and penalities of perjury under the laws of The United States of America that my political choice of venue for this transaction is The County of Dallas located within The State of Texas—a member-State of the perpetual Union and confederacy styled “The United States of America”;

“2.  I declare under the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of The United States of America that my political choice of law is the common law of The State of Texas; and,

“3.  I deny under the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of The United States of America that my political choice of venue includes Dallas County, DALLAS COUNTY,  TX, STATE OF TEXAS, State of Texas, Zip Code 75044, United States, UNITED STATES, United States of America, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, “this state,” or the New World Order.”

I recently received a copy of a pdf file entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America”.  This document has all of the text of the modern federal Constitution.  The “Document Properties” gives no clue to its author or source.  However, at the bottom of each page you can see the text “(2004 Ed.)” and “[Vol. 0 RCW-page 1]”.  I suspect that the document was published as part of Volume 0 of the Revised Code of Washington”—but I can’t prove it.

I find the document interesting because it is entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America”.  I know that the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781) declared that the proper name of the newly created confederation of States and resulting perpetual Union is “The United State of America”—not “the United States of America” and not “United States of America”.  I strongly suspect that the reference to “The Constitution of the United States of America” may be intended to mislead the average reader into thinking that this document it the true, de jure, organic Constitution.

More, I know that “organic law” is that which “creates” a new entity.  Thus, the Articles of Confederation created an entity whose proper name was “The United States of America”.  Technically speaking, those Articles of Confederation are the organic law that created “The Constitution of the United States of America”.  Thus, technically, the document entitled “Articles of Confederation” is “the constitution of The United States of America”. (By “the constitution” I am not giving you the proper name of the document, but I am offering a description of the meaning the organic document (The Articles of Confederation) that constituted or created the perpetual Union called “The United States of America”.)

If these kinds of linguistic niceties seem silly, bear in mind that the sophisticated use of various grammatical devices (like a word that is, or is not, capitalized) appears to be one of the fundamental tactics used to create the “alternative reality” of “this state”.  You can’t shoot your way out of “this state” with an automatic rifle.  On the other hand, you may be able to stroll out of “this state” with one or dictionaries and an advanced ability to read and write.

More, what is the proper name of our federal “Constitution”?  Is it 1) “The Constitution of the United States”; 2) “The Constitution of The United States of America”; or 3) “The Constitution of the United States of America”?

I’m not sure what the proper name of the federal Constitution is.  The truth is that the Founders were almost astonishingly negligent in eliminating ambiguity from the Constitution.  I believe its proper name is “The Constitution of the United States” because I believe that organic document created a federal government called “United States” and I know that the earlier Articles of Confederation created the earlier Union styled “The United States of America”.  Thus, the federal “Constitution” cannot be properly called “The Constitution of The United States of America” because the federal Constitution ratified in A.D. 1789 did not constitute/create the Union/confederacy called “The United States of America” because that Union had already been created by the Articles of Confederation eight years earlier.

The federal “Constitution” ratified in A.D. 1789 did not create “The United States of America”.  Therefore, the proper name for the de jure federal “Constitution” cannot be “The Constitution of The United States of America” or “The Constitution of the United States of America”.

I believe the “RCW’s” purpose for making “The Constitution of the United States of America” available is to trick the unsuspecting into relying on its authority and thereby making the unwitting “political choice” to transact in the venue of “this state”.

To illustrate, suppose I exactly copied all of the text—every word and all of the paragraphs and subsections—in Title 26 of the United States Code and published that text under the title “Al’s Internal Revenue Code”.  Even though my publication may be word-for-word identical to the government’s Title 26, would my publication have any authority?  No.  A different title indicates a different sovereign and a different choice of law.

In a similar sense, I suspect that if you quote from say, Article 1.10.1 of the RCW’s “The Constitution of the United States of America” you will be quoting a private document published under the authority of the ”RCW”—almost certainly a manifestation of “this state”.  You will not be quoting from the “The Constitution of the United States” as that document was ratified by the People in their capacity as individual sovereigns in A.D. 1789.  The words in both documents may be identical, but the authority will be completely different.  The RCW’s “The Constitution of the United States of America” may be useful for making an argument, but it will be worthless as evidence of the LAW.

You choice of “organic law” is almost certainly another “political choice” that will ultimately determine whether your venue will be within a State of the Union or “in this state”.  If you rely on the RCW version of the “Constitution,” you’ll probably be presumed to have chosen the “law of this state” and the “venue of this state”—and you probably won’t like the results worth a damn.

On the other hand, if you were careful to secure a certified copy of “The Constitution of the United States” as ratified in A.D. 1789 and kept in the custody of the National Archivist at the National Archives, you might have an authority that was not merely sufficient for argument; you might have an authority that was sufficient for introduction as EVIDENCE of the LAW.

My point in all of this is that almost every choice you make relative to the government or litigation may be a “political choice”.  Depending on that “political choice” you will choose between the venue of The State and “this state” as well as consenting to be subject to the LAW of “The State” or “this state”.  These kinds of political choices are almost certainly presumed by the courts, cops and system to be “in this state”—unless you expressly declare to the contrary.

It remains to be proven, but it appears that an effective declaration of your “political choice of venue” in virtually every transaction might be able to keep you out from under the power of “this state”.

It’s for that reason that the study of “political choice” seems warranted and potentially crucial.

Here are the highlights from twelve Supreme Court cases that include the term “political choice”.  My comments are in bold blue:

100901 Findlaw search POLITICAL CHOICE 12 cases

at arm’s length & without the singular United States

Alfred Adask

http://adask.wordpress.com

About these ads