RSS

The Organic Laws of The United States of America

30 May

Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer

Image via Wikipedia

Today, most people have never heard of the Articles of Confederation or the Northwest Territorial Ordinance.  Although virtually everyone has heard of the “Declaration of Independence,” virtually no one realizes it is not merely an interesting historical document but is, in fact, as much the law as The Constitution of the United States.

Instead, virtually everyone presupposes that The Constitution of the United States is not only the “supreme law of the land” (as per Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution), but is the only “law of the land”.  As a result, people presume that in order to understand the “law of the land,” we need go no further back in time than to the Constitution.

In fact, the issue of constitutional supremacy is more complicated since the “Declaration of Independence,” Articles of Confederation and Northwest Ordinance also carry legal authority comparable to that of the Constitution.  While it may be true that the Constitution is “supreme” among those four instruments, it’s not necessarily true that its supremacy can automatically overrule fundamental principles found in the previous three documents.

For example, in the second sentence of the “Declaration of Independence” the Founders declared the following truths to “self-evident”:  1) all men are created equal; 2) all men are equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; 3) these God-given, unalienable Rights include (but are not limited to) Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The third sentence of the Declaration declares in part, “That to secure these rights, governments are institute among men . . . .”  With that third sentence, the Founders declared the primary purpose of government:  to secure to each man, woman and even unborn child, their God-given, unalienable Rights.

We still celebrate those self-evident truths and fundamental purpose for every 4th of July.  I defy any bitch or bastard in what currently passes for “lawful” government to show me where in the “supreme law of the land,” the People of The United States of America ever agreed to waive their claim to God-given unalienable Rights or absolve the government from its primary duty to “secure” those God-given Rights.

 

•  How do I know that the principles of the Declaration (as well as Articles of Confederation, NW Ordinance) have as much standing at law as the Constitution?

Congress said so.

Where?

Volume 18of the Revised Statutes of the United States as enacted by the 43rd Congress (A.D. 1873-1875) and published by the Government Printing Office in A.D. 1878.  (Note that Volume 18 reflects the law as it was known to exist after the 14th Amendment was (allegedly) ratified in A.D. 1868.)

In that Volume 18, the Congress published a section entitled “The Organic Laws of The United States of America”.  That section includes four documents:

1) The “Declaration of Independence”;

2) The Article of Confederation;

3) The Northwest Ordinance; and,

4) The Constitution of the United States.

There is nothing in that collection of documents to suggest that the Constitution is the only component of “The Organic Laws of The United States of America”.  Instead, the four documents are presented as a cohesive collection, each of which are still every bit as much the Law as the Constitution.

 

•  The implications are enormous.

For example, we have legal authority to assert the principles in the “Declaration of Independence” as carrying the force of law.

 

•  We can also begin to see a possible distinction between “The United States of America” (the perpetual Union expressly created by the Articles of Confederation in A.D. 1781) and the “United States” (created by the Constitution of the United States as ratified by the People of the several States in A.D. 1788):

As created in the Articles of Confederation, “The United States of America” includes only the States of the Union.  However, the “United States” (created later by the Constitution of the United States) also includes Washington DC and the territories.  Technically, it appears possible that “The United States of America” does not include any territories or Washington D.C..

Thus, it appears possible that if you are “in Washington DC” and/or “in” one of the “territories,” that you may be “in the United States” but not within the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.  Conversely, if you are within one of the States of the Union and/or within “The United States of America,” you might not be “in the United States”—nor “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

 

•  Here’s another unlikely but interesting possibility:  While Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution declares that instrument to be the “supreme Law of the Land,” what comprises the “Land”?  I presume that at the time the Constitution was ratified, the term “Land” was intended to mean something like the “country” and included all of the People of The United States States of America and of the territories.  But is it possible that the “Land” referenced referred only to “land” in the sense of “territory” and without inclusion of the People of the several States comprising “The United States of America”?  Is it possible that some slick shysters masquerading as judges have since presumed the “land” to mean territory but not People?

 

•  Conjecture concerning the implications of “The Organic Law of The United States of America” may be endless, but here’s where you can find your own copies of the relevant law:

1.  Go to Statutes at Large (run by the Library of Congress) at:  http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html

2.  Click on the “Browse Statutes at Large” link on the left side of the page and it will take you to:  http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html

3.  Scroll down through the list of Volumes 1 through 18 of the Statutes at Large.  Look for Volume 18 at the bottom of the list.  Click on “Part 1: Revised Statutes and it will take you to http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=1 (the cover page for Volume 18).

4.  Click on the “Next Image” link near the top of the page.  It’ll take you to an essentially blank page.  Click on “Next Image” again and it will take you to image “iii” at: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=3  This page is a certification under seal by the Secretary of State William M. Evarts that this collection of the Revised Statutes (Volume 18) is “legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, and of the several States and Territories”.

5.  If you continue to click twelve more times on the “Next Image” link (at the top of the page), you’ll come to image “xv”—the last page in the Table of Contents.  Or, if you like, simply enter “xv” in the search engine near the top of the page.  In either case, you’ll come to:  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage.

6.  And, now, it begins to get a little weird.  When (at least ten years ago) I first found this information in Volume 18, after “image xv” there were additional “image numbers” in the search engine to identify the next 56 pages that comprise “The Organic Law of The Unites States of America”.  But since then, those 56 pages are no longer listed in the search engine at the top of the page.  Instead of ii, iii, iv, or 1, 2, 3 at the search engine to identify and image/page, the pages comprising The Organic Law of The United States of America have no identifying numbers in the search engine.  I don’t believe this is an accident.  I am convinced that the powers that be don’t want you find The Organic Law of The United States of America.

However, once you reach image “xv,” if you hit the “Next Image” link again, it will take you to the cover page for “THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” at: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=16

7.  Click “Next Image” and you’ll find a blank page.  Click “Next Image” again, and you’ll find “THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE—1776.*” at:  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=18

8.  Keep clicking “Next Image” four more times and you’ll find “ARTICLES OF CONFDERATION—1777” at:  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=22   (The Articles of Confederation may have been proposed in A.D. 1777, but so far as I know, they weren’t ratified until A.D. 1781.)

9.  Click “Next Image” six more times and you’ll find “THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT—1787” at:  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=28.

10:  Click “Next Image” four more times and you’ll come to “CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES—1787” at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=32  (While the Constitution was proposed in A.D. 1787, it was not ratified by the People until A.D. 1788.)

11.  If you keep clicking “Next Image” 40 more times, you’ll come to the end of the text and index for the Constitution—and the end of the section entitled “The Organic Laws of The United States of America” at:  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=72

 

•  Immediately above and below each page image, you’ll see a link entitled “Higher Quality Image (TIFF-43K)”.  If you click on that link on each page, you’ll get a downloaded copy of the page.  Alternatively, you can simply right-click on each page and select “Save Image As” or some such.  I suggest that you make copies of every relevant page including the cover page for the Revised Statutes, the Certification by the Secretary of State, the Preface, and each page of the The Organic Laws of The United States of America.  You might even want to make copies of the 10 (+/-) pages of the Table of Contents between the Preface and “The Organic Laws of The United States of America”.

 

•  You want to secure a credible copy of these documents that is admissible at law.  You want to secure a credible copy of these documents while you still can.

I recall finding a second set of “The Organic Laws of The United States of America” in Volume 17.  I can no longer find that copy.  Perhaps my memory is simply faulty.  Or maybe that second copy has been removed from the digital reproduction of Volume 17.  I can’t prove either possibility.

But here’s something I can prove.  There’s another source of all the Revised Statutes from A.D. 1789 through A.D. 2007 at:  http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/sal.htm.  This source claims to be a “Complete Collection”

However, if you click on Volume 18, you’ll only get to “Part III” and it does not include “The Organic Laws of The United States of America”.  Volumes 17 and 19 are also without “The Organic Laws . . . .”  At minimum, the “Complete Collection” at this website is not “complete”.

Maybe the missing “Organic Laws” are grounds for a conspiracy theory, maybe “The Organic Laws” are only missing due to negligence or incompetence.  But bear in mind that the only book that I’m aware of on the internet that presents “The Organic Laws of The United States of America” has removed the relevant page numbers from the search engine.  That omission, at minimum, makes those pages more difficult to find.  That omission and increased diffulty supports suspicions that the “powers” don’t the People to find “The Organic Laws of The United States of America”.

I therefore suggest you download and keep credible, legally admissible copies of “The Organic Laws of The United States of America” because 1) that collection of documents is potentially powerful; and 2) that collection of document might be “disappeared” in the foreseeable future.  If hundreds or thousands of people have independently downloaded “The Organic Laws . . .” and they are made to disappear, those hundreds (or thousands) of witnesses will make the disappearance real and harder to deny.

You may be able to make your copies “admissible” if you and two or more friends each independently download complete copies of “The Organic Laws” (plus the surrounding pages), each drafted an affidavit to memorialize the downloading and source of the pages, and then filed one complete copy of “The Organic Laws” document with three or more independent affidavits as verification into the County Record.  Out of the mouths of two or more shall a thing be established, hmm?   If I recall correctly, under Rule 92 (?) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, once a document is filed into the County Record, it become admissible in court.

 

About these ads
 

Tags: , , , , ,

83 responses to “The Organic Laws of The United States of America

  1. jeff

    May 30, 2011 at 12:14 PM

    But I thought that we are not in compact with the Constitution/contract. Since the original signers created the Constitution for themselves, they are the “We The People”, not us…???

     
    • Jethro

      May 30, 2011 at 1:38 PM

      We are (or at least I am) the Posterity.

       
      • Adask

        May 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM

        Technically, I’m not one of the “posterity”. All four of my grandparents immigrated into this country back about A.D. 1900. Thus, I cannot trace my bloodline to the Founders.
        However, I am a man made in God’s image (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and I am endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights (as per the 2nd sentence of the “Declaration of Independence” and therefore, the de jure government still has an obligation to “secure” my God-given, unalienable Rights (3rd sentence of the Declaration).
        More, as I point out in this article, the Constitution (source of the “posterity” remark) is not the only game in town. There’s also the Declaration, Articles, and NW Ordinance. Thus, while you can make a claim under the Constitution, I can make an equally strong claim under the other three documents comprising The Organic Laws of The United States of America.
        In fact, it occurs to me that 1) as weak as the Constitution has become; and 2) since I lack standing as “posterity,”–then 3) it is conceivable that I might still makes claims of right under the Declaration, Articles and NW Ordinance and effectively deny that I was bound by the Constitution.
        See my point?
        This is a outrageous argument, of course–but–insofar as the Preamble to the Constitution specifies that it was established for the benefit of the Founders and their “posterity” (and I am neither), then I might not only be preempted from making a claim under the Constitution, I might also be absolved from being bound by the Constitution–including the 14th and 16th Amendments.
        But, in theory, I could still make claims of right under the Declaration, Articles and NW Ordinance without suffering the disabilities that attach to the modern Constitution.
        Intriguing idea, no?

         
      • jeff

        May 30, 2011 at 4:40 PM

        have you read the “Law of Nations” ??? http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

        Sounds like you should.

         
  2. Adask

    May 30, 2011 at 1:18 PM

    The Constitution is not a contract. It’s a trust. We the People are the intended beneficiaries.

     
    • jeff

      May 30, 2011 at 4:37 PM

      as a TRUST is also a CONTRACT, an agreement between two or more people….

       
      • Adask

        May 30, 2011 at 6:12 PM

        Nope. A trust is fundamentally different from a contract for a number of reasons.
        1. A contract must be express–either oral or written–but a trust can be express or implied (presumed from mere conduct or moral obligation and without express oral or written statement). The ability of trusts to be created by mere implication makes them potentially “invisible” to the average person who (like you) thinks trusts are contracts. Because the implied trusts are virtually invisible, trusts can be extraordinarily powerful and dangerous.
        2. A contract is based on a fundamental equality between the parties. For example, a first party pays $10,000 to the 2nd party; the 2nd party sells his used car to the first party. It is presumed that the two parties to the contract received a roughly equal exchange of rights and duties. However, every trust is based on inequality wherein one party (the beneficiary) has virtually all of the rights and the other party (the fiduciary) has virtually all of the duties and liabilities.
        People who don’t understand trust relationships can be jailed based on an implied trust relationship wherein they are construed to be the fiduciary for the plaintiff (presumed beneficiary). They go to jail and they don’t have any idea as to Why.
        3. While it’s necessary for all parties to contracts to sign them, it’s not necessary that ANYONE sign a trust. Trust’s can be implied and therefore need no express words or signatures.
        4. I can create a trust that names my great-grandchildren as beneficiaries–long before those great-grandchildren are even conceived, let alone born, let alone old enough to “sign” or “understand” or “consent” to being beneficiaries of my trust.
        Contracts are relatively easy and generally harmless. Trust relationships are complex, subtle, sometimes invisible and potentially lethal. So long as you think that constitutions are contracts and contracts are identical to trusts, you be dumb and you be vulnerable to exploitation by a legal system that routinely relies on trust relationships to screw the innocent and also the willfully ignorant.
        Have you read book on trusts?
        Sounds like you should.
        In fact, it sound as if you should read several such books. Then, when you begin to have a clue, you might be able to offer intelligent criticism.

         
      • Don

        October 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM

        Re:Articles of Confederation & the Northwest Territorial Ordinance.
        Why not begin with the “Mayflower Compact” ? Doesn’t it say:to establish the Muslim faith/religion?

         
  3. jeff

    May 30, 2011 at 1:44 PM

    Have you read the “Law of Nations” by Vattel…???

     
  4. jeff

    May 30, 2011 at 1:49 PM

    So how are you one of “We The People”, when you did not sign “in the real flesh and blood” compact with the original Constitutional contract…??? A “Citizen” is a chattel property of the Constitution, compact or contract, a slave to be usurped. how are you any different??? What did you do, as far as you know, that sets you apart from the rest of the Citizen/slaves with Social Security Cards, drivers licenses, birth certificates, etc..???

     
    • Adask

      May 30, 2011 at 2:23 PM

      The Founders 1) implicitly declared all men to be made in God’s image; and 2) expressly declared all men to be endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
      The current government presumes all men to be “animals”.
      Man of the sort envisioned by the Founders have meaningful rights. Animals of the sort presumed by the current gov-co are mere chattel and essentially without rights.
      I prefer to be viewed as a man with rights rather than an animal. You seem content with your gov-co issued doggy treats (like SSN, DLs, BCs, etc.).
      If you don’t mind being an animal, maybe I’ll buy you and use you to fetch my newspaper every day. Might even take you for a walk in the park once in a while. Of course, if you get uppity, I’ll put you down and get a new dog.

       
      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 12, 2011 at 8:11 PM

        One thing for sure. I am to the “powers that are now “ruling,” a SUBJECT. Recently I heard on mu scanner a Sheriff dispatcher call for a deputy to check on an area nearby and report how many SUBJECTS would he estimate to be in this certain area. The deputy responded: “SUBJECTS are everywhere, I would say between 250 & 300.”

         
    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 12, 2011 at 8:18 PM

      jeff,

      Alfred is one of the Posterity/Offspring, great-great & on grandchildren of “We the People.” If you want proof, please advise.

       
    • Don

      September 30, 2012 at 3:00 AM

      Hey Hot Shot,(jeff)
      What are the sources of your lack of knowledge lies,except for Citizen/slaves with Social Security Cards, drivers licenses, birth certificates, etc..???

      You should have made “Citizen,” above, a common noun instead of a proper noun. You would have been correct IF you wrote: A “citizen” is a chattel property of the Constitution, as the 14th Amendment provides/establishes.Why did you leave out the “Posterity” of We the People. What Race you IS” Is you a “person” of cuhluh? Huh? Is U is awe is U aint?.

       
  5. Dan

    June 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM

    Clicking the link

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage

    in 5 above brings up:

    “Problem starting the page turner.
    Collection is not found”

    On the other hand, entering “xv” in the text box takes you to the last page of the Table Of Contents with this address:

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage

     
  6. Joel

    June 10, 2011 at 1:13 AM

    Al el al, Volume1 of the United States Code (my own edition is year 2000, a newer one is available) and it includes the four Organic Laws. A statement by Dennis Hastert is set before their printing in the following pages. Hastert states: “this edition is a consolidation of the general and permanent laws of the United States in force on January 2, 2001….”. Signed Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    I count this volume 1 as indispensable hard evidence existing for every student of the laws of liberty and I maintain it in my possession. This volume 1 is credible evidence affirming the three Organic Laws are all in effect today, but the Northwest Ordinance has been incorporated into the Constitution and its provisions made permanent there. Privileges and immunities are guaranteed free inhabitants at Article IV of the AoC: “… free inhabitants of each of these states…shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states…”. This guarantee goes with me into any discussion or alleged dispute or claim in a U.S. court (though I avoid them all wherever possible as a den of liars and criminal thieves) along with volume 1 US Code to evidence the AoC is still in effect. Were it not in effect, a record of its repeal would exist and no one has found such repeal. Also the repeal of the Articles would render the perpetual first union the United States of America would then lie in disassembly, but a key element is very much alive in the PotUS: the Commander in Chief of the military, which was clearly brought forward at Article II of the Constitution from the delegated powers to protect from foreign invasions given in the AoC. Does Obama possess those powers? We all know the answer is yes, and the origin and vesting of war power resides in the still dynamic and living Articles of Confederation. Those articles were revised by the ratification of the Constitution by 9 states, but though the Congress of the United states would like it to be forgotten, it is the work of liberty loving people to study and revive the memory and usage of all the Organic Laws, to discredit the whoredoms of Congress and bring it to heel by the limits to territorial jurisdiction admitted by Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 1 &17. In reading those provisions bear in mind they are referring to the territorial districts previously introduced in the N.W. Ordinance, which a scrupulous search show to be proprietary lands owned by the USA.
    Of course the Congress can legislate over the territory, possessions, and districts. Why? Because those districts are owned property of the USA. Wouldn’t you “support and defend” your right to set the rules and legislate over property you own? This is one of the hidden keys to understanding
    the means of wrenching free Americans from their unalienable birthright: hide the power to legislate in the hidden meaning of key terms found in the Organic Laws.

     
  7. Adask

    June 12, 2011 at 9:54 PM

    Sure, I’d like to see your evidence. Post it here or send it to my email at alfredadask@yahoo.com.

     
  8. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 13, 2011 at 12:42 AM

    Dear Alfred,
    One People not Peoples. One People means one race. I thought you were of that race (white). Every man I see in pictures of the founding fathers is white. The White House was not called that because it was painted white and you know that only white people held elected offices in this country, that is until, the so called “appropriate legislation (power clause) of the 13th,14th,& 15th amendments changed the purpose & intent of the founding fathers in just about every way if not in all ways. In reading & I believe in understanding early Court cases, well, let me give you one example of many. Shortly after the 14th Amendment, the evil forces were already trying hard to bring & make all peoples of every race, subjects & with no rights &/or privileges unless Congress, through “appropriate legislation” gave rights/privileges. Here is a short but complete statement from an early case, The Court said:

    No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. “The history and aim of the Fourteenth Amendment is well known, and the purpose had in view in its adoption well understood. That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States, who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. These persons were not white persons, but were, in the main, persons of African descent, who had been held in slavery in this country, or, if having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendents of slaves. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment it was settled that neither slaves, nor those who had been such, nor the descendants of these, though native and free born, were capable of becoming citizens of the United States. (Dread Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393). The Thirteenth Amendment, though conferring the boon of freedom upon native-born persons of African blood, had yet left them under an insuperable bar as to citizenship; and it was mainly to remedy this condition that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.”

    “This is a recent history–familiar to all.” pp. 46-47.

    This case is: Van Valkenburg v. Brown,43 California 43 year of 1872.

     
    • shupec

      October 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM

      What is the technical difference between ‘race’ in relation to man, animal, plant, etc.
      It is presumed that the Creator intended ALL MEN to be treated and percieved to be EQUAL, no differentiation by ‘race’, ‘ethnicity’, etc. Cynthia

       
  9. RB

    July 9, 2011 at 7:31 PM

    I recently applied for a new U.S.A. Passport and sent in the form, which I modified to indicate a Citizenship status other than what was printed on the form. It was returned to me, along with a very terse and abrupt letter from the regional director saying it was “improperly executed, and that if it was not corrected in a certain period of time, my passport would be denied, and I would not be getting a refund.

    I called Houston and discussed the issue, and was told that ALL “U.S. citizens” owe their status to the 14th Amendment. I politely but firmly rebutted and explained my position that I, as a white American man, whose earliest European ancestors arrived here in 1658, and helped found the Republic, 4-5 generations later, do NOT owe my Citizenship status in any way to the 14th Amendment, which benefited only newly freed African slaves. I then mailed a new application and a notarized affidavit, stating as much, and included several citation, including Van Valkenburg v. Brown,43 California 43.

    I received a USA Passport in short order, without having to provide a SSN.

    Apparently, the Department of State now agrees, and has my sworn documentation on file that I am NOT a 14th Amendment “person”, “U.S. person”, or “U.S. citizen”.

    This is the second time I have done this. The first time around, I had to slug it out with them for six months, but finally prevailed, not before having to be interviewed by two State Department investigators who hand delivered the passport, just so that they could get a good look at me. So I was pleasantly surprised when they gave in so easily this last time.

    Now I have both a state ID card and a USA passport, and did not provide a SSN for either. It works, but you have to be brave and willing to struggle for it. Not for those who are timid or trying to stay “under the radar”.

    Van Valkenburg v. Brown,43 California 43.has been a useful citation to me in making my case up against ignorant bureaucrats. I’m sure she was non-white and it galled here. But what could she say? It is history, and it is fact.

     
    • Don

      July 10, 2011 at 10:21 AM

      It is the “Notary” I have a problem with. The following excerpt by Randy L. Geiszler should explain why.
      According to scripture of the Holy Bible, two or more witnesses are required to establish a fact.

      “One witness shall not rise against a man for a trespass, or for any sin, or for any fault that he offendeth in, but at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” Deut. 19:15.

      In contrast, a notary is unholy, being, first, only one witness, second, not to be doubted as a single witness merely because the office is created by the state (statutory person and office), rather than being created by God (our Father) (witnesses are natural creations of God) and finally, being slaves, freeman (slave made a statutory or “legal” person) or servants, all of which are legally less than a Citizen who’s instrument they witness and authenticate.

      Finally, note that notaries came into being under Roman Civil Law. The Roman Empire for most of its history was a state governed by military authority, under the guise of civil law. For hundreds of years so-called civil power changed hands by military edict. This power was also regulated, maintained and overthrown by military or quasi-military authority. The Roman Empire is a classic example of a state governed by Martial Rule. The Notary Public is an office which found its origin in Martial Rule and was adopted from it. Therefore, it must be presumed to help impose Martial Rule, where government assumes to be god (as with Roman idolatry) and God our Father and His witnesses are cast aside.

       
      • Joey

        February 13, 2012 at 9:56 PM

        You posted something saying: “In contrast, a notary is unholy, being, first, only one witness”

        But the notary is not the only witness, you the submitter are the other, and thus the minimum of two witnesses is maintained even under Mosaic Law. In fact, Jesus Himself used this sort of reasoning:

        “In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.” (John 8:17 & 18)

         
    • maxwell

      May 5, 2014 at 10:35 AM

      I’d like to contact RB to ask him more about his state ID card. Is there a way to contact him?

       
      • Adask

        May 5, 2014 at 11:33 AM

        I can’t hand out people’s email addresses. If he sees your comment and wants to share his email address, perhaps he will.

         
      • cpmaxwell

        May 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM

        thanks for the response. Would you be able to give him my email to contact me? …or do you know anything about a state ID. Trying to get a bank account outside the country and having trouble with ID since I don’t have a DL or passport Thanks

         
      • Adask

        May 6, 2014 at 10:20 AM

        Would you be able to give me some info on who you’re looking for? You’ve said you’re looking for “RB”. Who the hell is that? Would you like me to scroll through all the email on this blog looking for “RB”? I get up to 200 email a day. If I spend 3 minutes on each one, that’s ten hours a day spent reading and replying to email. If you want some help, could you please be sufficiently specific to make that help possible? I’ve done a computer search of all the comments for “RB”. I get 51 “hits”. Would you like me to read each of those 51 comments and then guess whichever “RB” you’re looking for? I’m not running a dating service here. If you want some of my help, you need to first help me to know whatever you’re talking about.

         
      • cpmaxwell

        May 6, 2014 at 11:00 AM

        I’m not very familiar with blogs or how they are set up. One that I do read occasionally is where frequent commenters are signed up as “members” and the blog “owner” has contact info. on them, so that was my reference point on asking you about contacting him. Sorry, to frustrate you. I am attempting to get a bank account in another country. Not having any state issued DL, passport etc. is creating obstacle. So what I’m needing is: 1) see if I can and how to get passport, not as a US citizen (to use for ID) 2) or getting some other sort of picture ID that bank will accept. Just recently came across your website. Thanks

         
  10. Virginia

    July 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

    So, the Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance are/should be VERY much alive today! I tried finding out, what we have always been told,that the Constitution took the place of these other pertinent documents and that’s not the case at all! Awesome to know, isn’t it?

    I also read that these are for government, not for people who are born with unalienable rights? Must we “consent” to being governed or can we govern ourselves?

    Thanks,
    Virginia

     
    • Don

      October 5, 2012 at 10:03 PM

      Virginia,

      “State and Federal Constitutions are not grants of power to the legislature, executive and judicial departments but are limitations on the powers of each, and no department of the State may add to, nor detract from its clear mandate;”

       
  11. Adask

    July 23, 2011 at 8:03 PM

    The Organic Law is pretty cool, hmm?

    Given that you have God-given, unalienable Rights (as declared in the 2nd sentence of the “Declaration of Independence”), you have the opportunity to consent or not consent to the creation of your government (as implied by the 3rd sentence of the “Declaration”).

    You are presumed to have consented whichever government you’re confronting–but which government are you confronting at any given moment? Are you confronting the de jure government of “The State of Texas” (for example) that was created by The Constitution of The State of Texas and is a member-state of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”? Or are you confronting the purported, de facto government of a fictional “territory” that exists by implication, but without a Constitution, and is generically referred to as “this state,” “TX,” “STATE OF TEXAS,” etc.?

    Insofar as there is a written Constitution for The State, your consent is legally presumed and virtually mandatory–your consent is pretty much set in stone since you’ve made no attempts to amend or change your State’s constitution. However, insofar as “this state” exists by implication and without a written Constitution, your consent to be subject to the laws of “this state” is presumed from you conduct, but appears to have little or no lawful foundation.

    In other words, so long as you are within the borders of “The State of Texas,” I doubt that you can withdraw your consent to be subject to the laws of that State of the Union. If you don’t consent to be subject to the laws of The State of Texas, amend the constitution or simply pack up and cross the border.

    But, “in this state,” it appears that your consent is only presumed and has no lawful foundation. Your consent to be subject to the law of this state” does not approach the level of being mandatory, but appears to be purely “optional”. I can’t prove it, but it appears possible to manifest an effective refusal to consent to be subject to the laws of “this state” (an apparent territory). IF such refusal IS possible, it’s not easy, but it is doable.

    If the de jure government of The State is missing or insolvent, the de facto government of “this state” may have taken its place. Under such circumstances–without a functioning “constitutional” government of The State and finding only the illusion of a government in “this state”–if you could effectively manifest your refusal to be subject to the laws of “this state” (and there was no effective enforcement of the laws of The State), you might find yourself in a condition where you were only subject to the laws of God.

     
    • Virginia

      July 23, 2011 at 11:03 PM

      I personally don’t believe it to be necessary to “pack up and cross the border” per say, and find that idiom probably not the best to use and may be construed in the wrong way. Most assuredly, I guess it’s a great idea for one to understand/learn how to apply the organic laws, in order to rectify any ass-umptions/presumptions on the part of those making them, correct?

      Looks like our only other option would be to research, learn and glean what we can from people such as Joel(awesome info.!) and some of your articles that are quite interesting.

      Virginia

       
      • Adask

        July 23, 2011 at 11:14 PM

        I don’t mean to cross the Texas border into Mexico or Canada. I mean cross the Texas border into Oklahoma or New York or whichever of the 50 States of the Union seems to have a system of laws that you would be inclined to “consent” to. Originally, there was some variety among the several States of the Union. Constitutions varied. One man who took offense to the laws of The State of Texas might feel “right at home” under the Constitution and laws of The State of Nebraska. We had a variety of State constitutions and potential citizens could “shop around” among those States and Constitutions for the one that offered the best “fit”.

         
      • Virginia

        July 23, 2011 at 11:28 PM

        Thanks Mr.Adask! Unfortunately most think of the Mexican border!LOL

         
  12. Joel

    July 23, 2011 at 8:33 PM

    This letter in several installments will be provided aims to help readers with the discussion Organic Laws of the USA. In it I will outline facts and laws which clarify for the reader the nature of governments in the USA, the confederacy of 13 States which sent delegates to amend their States Articles of Confederation at a secret convention presided over by George Washington. I believe it is reveals a key concept for readers, which is the correct analysis of the difference between a United States District “County” and a California (or other “State of ____” geographic Common Law County. It has come to my attention that there is a special, non Standard English language legal definition of “County” at USC Title 1.

    Definition 1: USC Title 1: Sec. 2: County as including “Parish”, and so forth “The word “county” includes a parish, or any other equivalent subdivision of a State or Territory of the United States”.

    Definition 1. Is defining a United States County as “a Territory of the United States”. Territory of the United States began with the Northwest Territory, land ceded to the United States of America, the confederacy, by King George III. By this process the entire Northwest Territory became owned by and ceded to the United States of America. The USA was the sole proprietor of all the Northwest Territory. The United States of America owned and legislated over no land under the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, and the United States was kept purposely landless under these Organic Laws, to be certain no central government could begin to usurp authority it clearly did not possess so that as a landless paper entity, the United States in Congress assembled could be controlled by states who created it.

    The Articles of Confederation is Organic Law as pertaining to the laws of the United States of America, including all the legislation of the United States. The Articles have not been repealed on any public record, and in fact are printed in the official publication of Title 1, U.S. code; with the note these laws comprise the laws cognizable in all courts of the United States. When nine states ratified the Constitution of September 17, 1787 upon themselves no new power over property not owned by and ceded to the United States was included in that document. Nor have the 13 confederate states ever unanimously repealed the Articles of Confederation. In spite of this fact, 220 years has brought micro-management and massive taxation of every particle of property and nearly every common occupation not specifically exempted in statutes. This paper explains the subterfuge, frauds and usurpations, in some part, how this theft was perpetrated upon trusting Americans.
    Laws of the State of California Constitution Article IV Sec. 16 guarantee uniform operation of general laws, which among others is The Articles of Confederation. Article III of the State Constitution Sec 6 declares the English language is the common language of the people of the United States of America and the State of California. The words County, District, State, Territory have been sufficiently altered and confused by statutory laws to have rendered their meanings outside of the common language of inhabitants whose rights to property has been emasculated setting them up as victims of a ravenous State, by using words in statutes the people do not comprehend, done intentionally with malice and much forethought. No unalienable right has withstood the attack; all have been decimated, minimized, adjudicated, and endlessly regulated. No right of the people to be left alone and to remain separate from intrusions of the State, guaranteed to inhabitants in the Articles of Confederation, has been allowed under statutory district/county government. The most disastrous and criminal fraud of any government on the face of the earth has been the bald faced devilish lie that the Articles of Confederation, a wall between inhabitants free of government and the State, have been replaced by the written Constitution. THAT IS A GROSS LIE OF THE STATE! That lie has allowed the State to commandeer and force itself into the peoples lives at every detail, made property ownership security and descent a high risk subject of endless regulatory hazards, and made every worker first and foremost, a worker for the oppressive State by heavy taxation far beyond all imagined limits of writers of the first two Organic Laws. This paper will demonstrate some of the details how that disaster to American’s liberty has been pursued in statutory law.
    Joel

     
    • Virginia

      July 23, 2011 at 8:51 PM

      Wow Joel………excellent! Please share more.

      Thank you kindly,
      Virginia

       
  13. Joel

    July 24, 2011 at 12:36 AM

    There is a great mountain of misunderstanding about a subject that is only made confusing by the class, around the world, which intends and labors to bring a free people into its service and control…through language corrupted as to its original meanings. English is the language of our free people, free and noble from birth since before the Declaration of Independence, but made available to all who can receive its truth by the self evident proclamation of the truth that all men are created equal and free…people endowed with unalienable rights from their creator…if they can understand them and learn to defend them.

    Statutes, ordinances, rules and policies are rules of written law originating from an alien source of claimed authority as compared to common law. All laws pertain to a particular people, and must identify the territory or property to which they are claimed to apply. “We the People” is the voice of a foreign authority claiming, in words which may be inspiring to the uninformed but which misleads him, by appearing to speak for the common man of America by the voice of a written law.

    A careful reading of the written Constitution of Sept 17, 1787, reveals that voice is aimed at capturing a free people by using a misplaced faith in a document and an alleged government using principles foreign to the common law. Reading written law requires a skeptical viewpoint, a hyper-critical mind, and a literal reading. Then, when the written law is compared with historical facts, the words of written law can be recognized for what they are saying and come into the minds eye as a clear comprehension of its significance to the critical reader. The process takes time and concentration, but anyone who can read the language can improve their ability to read written law. Most opinionated Americans have probably never opened up a book of United States law in their past. This is a big part of the problem of rediscovering the paths of liberty for freedom loving American inhabitants. We must understand the terms of the written laws of those who would be our captors.

    Joel

     
    • Virginia

      July 25, 2011 at 7:46 PM

      Thanks Joel……again! I just started my course on organic law, so this should prove quite interesting to say the least! What has brought me to searching, are my personal convictions that this system IS “one nation under a god”……..but it is also a foreign one, the usurper and not the true almighty God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

      If there are other articles that you’ve written, please let me know or share! I have learned much here on this forum……but so much MORE must be learned!

      I find it a shame to have to admit, that most of us find ourselves fighting each day just to try and keep the little that we have for our survival and that of our families in our own homeland…..seems like this is where the TRUE war is!

      I know some would say, “Well, if you don’t like the way things are run here, then leave!”. It is because of the love that many have for this country, that they are here. Leaving is not an option for most and it doesn’t fix anything. Some of us, such as myself, have had generations of ancestors here in America before there was an America, so you can’t exactly just get up and go! It has nothing to do with the good people of America………and everything to do with tyrants!

      We can’t even use the excuse that “other” countries are worse in comparison to America, since there is no better country!This country is the only one of it’s kind, where people from all over the globe have come as immigrants, fought, lived and loved here. But now, America is in trouble,and has been for sometime. Most of us have forgotten what true freedom really entails, what it means to be American and have pride and true freedom in this beautiful country! We must start taking back what has been lost by becoming knowledgeable people.

      I’m hopeful that a change will come one day! There is always hope for those who want to make a difference and put all their trust in the one true living God.

      Blessings to you Joel and this forum

      Virginia

       
      • Joel

        July 26, 2011 at 1:26 AM

        Second installment to a key concept for readers, which is the correct analysis of the difference between a United States District “County” (or any other County of the “State of ____”), and a California geographic Common Law County. This analysis is applicable to each of the States of the United States. When readers invest a few hours reading the laws and definitions of the State that makes claim they reside “within the State”, and presumes to capture them as to serving these State laws, their own findings will confirm what I have found for State of California written law. This will provide each reader for perhaps for the fist time, the mental clarity to comprehend how the State stands apart from the inhabitant in law and in fact. This should be a good beginning in your ability to extract yourself from the State.

        Definition 2: Webster’s New World Dictionary College Edition, 1968 defines County as: “a small administrative district of a country; especially a) a local administrative subdivision of a State, which in turn is divided into townships”.

        Definition 2. Defines a common current understanding of County, which is assumed by people and governments to be all geographic land within the outer borders of a County, as it actually is under a Common Law County inherited from our English Common Law, but which I will explain is incorrect understanding for a District and a County of the United States.

        Definition 3: Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language: 1. “Originally the district or territory of a count or earl. 2. A count; an earl or lord, county court, the court whose jurisdiction is limited to a county, whose powers, in America, depend on statutes.”

        Definition 3 gives the needed information lacking in Definitions 1 and 2, namely that American Counties – for jurisdiction of courts – depend on statutes, the product of a legislature. Why is that important information missing in current definitions? Given the endless growth of government, it has served the purpose to confuse the people.

        The three words that “Counties, for jurisdiction of courts, depend on statutes, the view opens to the thinking mind that the original colonial County operated in the realm of unwritten Common Law, the long existing law of the inhabitants of the states of the United States of America under the confederacy; but the newly defined County per the above definitions depends on written statutes. That is not all, for the newly defined County depends on another key element to obtain jurisdiction over land or people within a county: Proprietary interest in the land of the newly defined statutory County.

         
    • Don

      September 29, 2012 at 5:28 PM

      Joel,
      Re: Your comment, in pertinent part: “A careful reading of the written Constitution of Sept 17, 1787, reveals that voice is aimed at capturing a free people………….”

      It does not make sense that,not just one, but 39 men would create a “document” that was meant to enstare & oppress not only the signers, but their own children, grandchildren, & on.

      When I read “early ” State Court decisions including those from the Supreme Court of The United States, I have to go on what they say, even tho today, they are said to be,by the “enlightened,” nothing more than garbled, uneducated frontier gibberish,i.e the early court decisions.

       
  14. Donald

    July 26, 2011 at 2:50 AM

    To Joel, Re: Part of your comment on July 26, 2011 at 1:26 AM: “When readers invest a few hours reading the laws and definitions of the State that makes claim they reside…..”

    What are your thoughts re:the words,”resident, reside, etc.”? Since I was asked many times in the past by attorneys, “where do you reside, & are you a resident of ….”? I instinctively felt they were trap questions. My research has brought up some interesting results on “res.” So,once again, what are your thoughts re: those words/terms?

     
    • Joel

      July 27, 2011 at 12:39 AM

      Joel’s analysis letter Installment 3: County vs. county; Federal Territory or non federal territory.

      The word “district” is used consistently in the Organic Laws of the United States of America to describe the territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of the United States of America.

      The first Organic Law, the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, only once uses the word “Districts,” and only in a way that clearly shows a “district” to be a place subject to the exclusive authority of a superior government. “He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them and formidable to Tyrants only.”

      The word “district” never appears in the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777. While the third Organic Law is all about the “district” called the Northwest Territory: “Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient.”

      The sole appearance of the word “district” in the Constitution of September 17, 1787 confirms the meaning it was given in the Declaration of Independence and Northwest Ordinance. “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square), as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

      The Northwest Ordinance was the temporary plan for governing the District. In it we find the first essential details necessary to understand how the United States (realize here when I use the term “the United States”, I include each of the 50 States as well as Washington, D.C.) began to claim jurisdiction over all that territorial land. It did so, initially, by a right we could all agree with: the United States owned outright all the land of the Northwest Territory, for the land was, after the Treaty of Paris 1873, owned by and ceded to the United States of America. Implied powers of all kinds, tyrannies of the former King, were ended by American victory in war with England, and by the Declaration of Independence, which separated men from governments.

      As the (Northwest territory) District was settled, inhabitants purchased or were granted lands from the District inventory, land to “hold in his own right, in fee simple” (paragraph 9, Northwest Ordinance).

      Before the Constitution of September 17, 1787 was ratified by nine States and established between those States, the idea of a county was as a subdivision of anyone of one those States of the original Union. After ratification, those counties remained subdivisions of those States of the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777; however the new element of a law superior to the English common law was introduced into the common law county.

      I think if your find this helpful in your understanding of County, the next installment will “knock your socks off! It is like having a lens or interpreter deeply hidden in the language the of the written law foreign to our jurisdiction, which must tell the truth, but in language having terms so hidden, that when comprehended, completely “undresses the king”. Don’t fail to join me for this one, as your liberty literally hangs in the balance of knowing these facts and laws, or not.

       
  15. Joel

    July 26, 2011 at 3:37 AM

    If I recall res is defined as a thing, ident is identified, so resident becomes a thing identified. It also denotes a temporary location of a persons habitation, and also exemplifies the word as useful to describe a diplomat who is performing some State directed duty in a temporary function, or words to those effects. Given the typical turning or twisting of the law in legal definitions to become some new idea not found in the original English language meaning, I think resident is a risk ridden word to call oneself or to admit to by signing any legal document made available to the State.

    To establish residency “within the State” the inhabitant typically must bring in some third party information like a utility bill which shows the name and address of the inhabitant applying for the government permit, benefit or license such as a driver license. I assume the utility company has a license to do business”within the State”, so the companies bill showing the inhabitants name and address provides a superficial, but acceptable by the State, affirmation that the inhabitant does in fact reside in the State where the company is licensed. However, by using the analysis I provide in my letter, an inhabitant will be able to obtain and maintain the mental focus to overcome the presumption of his being a “resident” of the State, with numerous supports for this conclusion.

    Other thoughts are that we can benefit our clear thinking from observing the typical methodology the State utilizes in its quest to nail us into it’s jurisdiction: third party “informations” provided by entities doing business within the State. Think of 1099′s, bank records of accountholders, records in County Recorders files, and now with web activities, many superficial nexus’ could be presumed by the State.

    The requirements for P-resident, (note the similarity with the word resident, as though such person is the key resident) Senators and Representatives in the written constitution tied each one to a residency requirement in “the United States”, obvious required political connections to a government. Such persons of government is really who the Constitution was contemplating as its Citizens and residents, but the common man is not the one contemplated by a careful reading of the constitution in that document, until he became incorporated into government as a resident voter to participate in the subterfuge called government by thinking erroneously his vote would make him a franchisee in the farce of a democracy he had consented to influence by voting. Now the farce comes full circle: he thinks he has a “representative”. Has any reader ever found any alleged “representative” that has faithfully carried his concerns into a Congress of the United States?

     
    • Donald

      July 26, 2011 at 5:05 AM

      Thanks Joel !! EXCELLENT Reply!!! A+

       
    • Virginia

      July 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

      Excellent Joel as always! Everything we do is usually considered “residential” in one way or another. I was recently asked to attend an assessors hearing, so I could fill out one of their “residential” homestead forms or they said I would be breaking their “law” and not allowing them to assess my property correctly, give me a school discount, and have their records updated………..to which I declined of course. The assessors office even had the nerve to fill one out for me……….and said my interest in my property is 100%…….all I had to do was sign!

      I even took them a copy of my notarized Declaration of Homestead and they would not accept it and they kept insisting that I fill out one of their forms……….I kept telling them that I did not want to cause them any problems by having TWO homesteads done, so I’d stick with the first one, unless they could tell me that something was wrong with it and was against the law! From assessor to supervisor, they didn’t have an answer for me, and just said “we can’t get into legal matters”. Makes you wonder.

      These are just some of the reasons that I feel lead to protect what my family and I have worked so hard for. It’s high time we become wise as serpents and gentle as doves, even acting ignorant sometimes and asking LOTS of questions! Please feel free to continue on Joel…..this is AWESOME!

       
      • Don

        September 28, 2012 at 8:17 AM

        To: Virginia,

        Re: “…….even acting ignorant sometimes…..”

        WOW ! I Had it made in the shade but could not see the forest for the trees. I don’t even have to ACT. Just need to be my natural self. Really !!!

         
  16. Joel

    July 27, 2011 at 12:08 AM

    Ah, Virginia! You have seen and noted very insightful information with the offer you declined to enroll yourself in – the newest version of the Socialist plan to manage you and tax and regulate you and your property according to it’s terms. Everything done by the legal system of the United States or one of them or one of their federal Counties, today is purely administrative law, a completely non judicial level of law… its administration of agency policy, really. Remember the Constitution of Sept 17, 1787 outlined how a President, “with advice and consent of the Senate” would appoint officers of government administrative agencies, as the President may appoint from time to time. There has been a complete and utter severance of law from the Common Law that is our English common heritage, and the territorial administrative laws of the United States. United States laws do not enter the realm of common law, one law is a written law, which is that of government, the other law realm existing at all times is of the unwritten common law of the people living upon the land.

    The source of one is the Legislature either of Congress or of the State, the other’s source is found in the hearts and consciences of the people. Government law deals with government regulation essentially rules of a for profit corporate management including a misapplied executive enforcement power and trial by administrative judge, with possible fines, imprisonment, or capital punishment.

    Common law deals with crimes known to all common folk, excludes victimless crimes, public liability and limited liability, and suits between persons not having standing in that venue. It utilizes no public official as “paid judge”, and its jurors all 12, are true peers or commoners as close to the real peers of the accused as could be found. Common law’s simplicity and extensive usefulness in guiding interpersonal, town, contract and property issues governance cannot be denied, for over centuries common law in old England took the people who lived by it to greater heights of community cohesiveness and interdependence than had been seen in known history, as people governing themselves over a large territory.

    About the turn of the thirteenth century a great king arose who needing tax money and wanting to reach the furthest parts of his proclaimed realm, he organized then spent a large part of his time, traveling from region to region to collect his sovereign’s taxes with his own enforcement machinery. He traveled in a great coach drawn by many horses, with his large entourage of taxing officers. This is the king who, in pursuit of ever growing his revenues, needed a court that could offer simpler and more standardized “forms” with which to pursue a given “equity” (hearing of the kings decrees) or common law hearing. During his tenure the number of forms called “writs” available in a standard pleading outline numbered hundreds, so had a popular appeal for simplicity and standardization, all the while the king becoming more able to control the commoners because the use of his writs opened them to his courts jurisdiction. That summarizes how some claim the common law began to be mingled with the kings courts ind its rules of equity.

    Back to your homestead issue, it sounds like for what you understand of the law Virginia, you played your hand well. You may discover other possible defenses from their future claims in reading my installment letter.

     
    • Virginia

      September 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM

      Joel,

      Can you PLEASE email me all your installment letters! My email is reyesfamily4jc@aol.com

       
  17. Joel

    October 18, 2011 at 3:29 PM

    The preamble to the constitution of Sept 17, 1787 contains the words “we the people of the United States”. Who are those people and what is the United States?

    The preamble is not a formal part of the written constitution, but was added as a means of garnering more support for its ratification among the States. It is almost of no significance as any reliable wording of any law. But those words probably did work to an increase of confidence among those who ratified it, without providing any definition of who “we the people” actually are.

    The Declaration of Independence speaks of “one people”. Who are they? Thus we see there are actually at least two “people” being spoken of in these two contrasting and in many ways opposite documents. The Declaration is the constitution for the “one people”. The Constitution of Sept 17, 1787 is the Constitution of the United States, and the people thereof.

    The one people of the Declaration are the inhabitants of the English Colonies, who cast out the English monarchy and its claims to fiat written legislation under that Declaration of Independence. The one people’s law is unwritten common law of England, their longtime heritage, the same law which exists for all people of all States (except Louisiana) of the perpetual union of the United States of America. Their law is embedded in their language, and activated by their conscience and sense of need to protect themselves from common law crimes like murder, theft, and property damage, within an ambiant condition of peaceful co-operation among them, as contained in the English language, not in law books. Everyone of that heritage learns and practices their unwritten law by their town and county customs. Neighbors depend on each other, families and churches assist the poor and needy, couples are joined in matrimony by their friend or minister who holds no license from the State. The “one people” of the English common law are free to remain aloof from all political associations and obligations to the State.

    The more perfect union is driven by a very different set of principles. Its “We the people of the United States” enter into a definite partnership with the non sovereign dependent political subdivision State of the United States by providing their signatures on voter registrations, jury service, driver license, and Social Security applications, each application requires them to sign under penalty of perjury that they are citizens of the United States, and “reside” in one of the non sovereign States of the United States. “Residing in” does not mean living upon land owned by the United States of America, it means declaring oneself to be subject to the laws of that political State by signed agreement. And that serves as sufficient evidence that such person has subjected himself to the political State, as divided into political, judicial, school, fire, congressional, internal revenue, and other districts. After all when stopped by a traffic cop, this person of the United States did present his State issued driver license as his self identification to the officer of the State of the United States, did he not? This person uses that same i.d. to open bank accounts, credit cards, apply for loans, job and rental agreement identifications, etc.

    So you see we plainly have two different people in these two Organic Laws: the “one people” and “We the people of the United States”. We need to find all the significant differences between these Organic Laws and understand them clearly before we can make any fully informed decisions about who we really are or who we want to become. Time spent in their analysis is time well spent.

    Joel

     
    • Adask

      October 18, 2011 at 4:10 PM

      I can’t prove it, but I believe that when they wrote the Preamble, the Founders meant “We the People of the [several] United States”. I believe the phrase “several United States” is synonymous with “several States of the Union” and/or “The United States of America”. I believe they were describing the “one people” within the “several United States” a/k/a “The United States of America”.

      I don’t believe for one minute that the Preamble means “We the People of the [singular] United States” because there was no “SINGULAR United States” until after the Constitution was ratified–perhaps not until the 14th Amendment. Insofar as a “singular United States” could not have existed until after the Constitution was ratified, the Preamble cannot be referring to the People of the “singular United States” since such entity did not exist when the people gathered to write and then ratify the Constitution.

       
      • Joel

        October 18, 2011 at 4:58 PM

        Al, there exist and are today two unions: the perpetual, sovereign union of confederate States who agreed to unite as “the United states in Congress assembled”, and the “more perfect union” of non sovereign, territorial States of the United States wherein “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives”.

        It is that new Congress which is merely bringing forward from the NW Ordinance the proprietary power “To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District
        (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States , and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings”.

        “A Congress of the United States” is not the same organization as “the United States in Congress assembled”. New organizations receive new names.

        “We the people of the United States” is a term whose meaning is mistaken as a friendly “you and we are one, we people”, invitation to feel good, but which has proven to be a total military takeover of liberty and that same new United States has demanded everyone buy licenses and permits to do anything needed to live within it, the opposite of liberty. The new United States has “a Congress”, consisting of Senators and a House of Representatives, one group claiming to represent States, the other group claiming to represent citizens of the United States, who have registered with the State to be voters. And since the ratification of the constitution among nine States, the choosing of the “President of the United States of America”, the executive and commander in Chief of the military from the Articles of Confederation has been done not by voters, but by electors. Then the POTUSA appoints himself “President of the United States” by taking the Article II Oath. All this is found in the words of the law, so that we need not rely on beliefs, but rather can prove our findings and positions by quoting the law itself.

        We must be able to prove by the words of the laws the truth of our assertions or beliefs, otherwise we are not founded on law in our beliefs. That is how the United States continues to hold power over our minds, by doubt in our ability to discern the words of the law. That is the great value of understanding the Organic Laws. They actually reveal the truth to our minds by their words. I participate occasionally in this blog to test your readers to find those actually interested in what the law says, rather than presenting passionately held beliefs which are not supported in law, and lead us to further ruin.

        I tell you that your belief is preventing you from studying the law sufficiently to understand the words which reveal whether “I can’t prove it, but I believe that when they wrote the Preamble, the Founders meant “We the People of the [several] United States”. I believe the phrase “several United States” is synonymous with “several States of the Union” and/or “The United States of America” is a true or a false statement facts and law expressed as your belief. I have showed you why that is a false belief and why you need not remain a faith based believer, but can become a fact and law based free man. First believe you can understand the words of the laws, then read them very carefully, looking for discrepancies between words and phrases from one organic law to the next, and the differences will teach you the truth, in which you become fully informed.

        Joel

         
  18. James Davis

    October 19, 2011 at 2:59 AM

    Wow!

     
  19. Whoever

    October 23, 2012 at 9:05 PM

    Congress does not have the power to declare the articles of confederation and such equal with the constitution as the supreme law of the land by a simple majority. It must go through the constitutional amendment process to do so.

     
  20. Whoever

    October 23, 2012 at 9:10 PM

    “I don’t believe this is an accident. I am convinced that the powers that be don’t want you find The Organic Law of The United States of America.”

    The “powers to be” are pretty shitty at preventing people from finding this information if their only effort in that direction is some minor search engine obfuscation that, to a reasonable person, would look like simple error. Do they store top secret national security documents this way as well?

     
    • Don

      October 24, 2012 at 4:04 PM

      Whoever,
      It doesn’t matter if you/I find them or not. The courts say: “Due to the “merger of law & equity” the Organic Law is of historical interest only due to the merger of Law & Equity and at this stage of/in the “development” of the law everything considered “law” prior to this stage of the developing is of historical interest only.

       
  21. John H.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:10 AM

    It is interesting stuff that Joel teaches. There is another fellow who also teaches similar lessons along the same track.
    http://www.edrivera.com/?p=978
    LETTER OF INTENTION TO BECOME A FREE INHABITANT UNDER ARTICLE IV OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION OF NOVEMBER 15, 1777

    Filed Under Adoption, Articles of Confederation, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, LAW OF THE LAND, LEARNING THE LAW, Martial Law, Oath of Office, ORGANIC LAWS

    All a person has to do to become a free inhabitant under Article IV of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 is stop acting like a citizen of the United States. If you are one of my Students, you can send President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama your version of the following letter. If you aren’t a Student, you can contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com and you can enroll as one.

    Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

    YOUR NAME

    YOUR ADDRESS

    DATE

    President of the United States

    Barack Hussein Obama

    The White House

    Washington, D. C. 20502

    Dear Mr. President:

    I am one of the students of Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, who claims to be the World’s Greatest Legal Mind. He has discovered that George Washington did not meet the Article II Section 1 Clause 5 residency requirement of 14 Years on February 4, 1789, when he was elected, so without explanation, Washington took the oath that every President Elect has since taken. Dr. Rivera teaches that the taking of that oath permits the establishment of a kind of property management system, which is appropriately called an “Administration,” in which you are now the chief administrator.

    George Washington made an unauthorized amendment of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 by taking that oath without informing the people of the world. Taking the oath of Office of President of the United States without disclosing that he was doing so because he was not eligible to the Article II Section 1 Clause 5 Office of President was a fraud upon the American people.

    There is no dispute that you took the same oath taken by George Washington on April 30, 1789, my request is that you acknowledge that you have taken no other oaths as President. All existing Presidential Libraries acknowledge only the taking of an oral oath by any President Elect in recent history.

    George Washington’s unauthorized amendment of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 aborted that part of the government that would have complemented the administration that you now lead. Congress under the Articles of Confederation. That government would have a President under the Constitution of September 17, 1787 and the “one supreme Court” of Judges instead of the military Justices in the U.S. Supreme Court

    I am being harassed by persons who claim to be your agents. These persons do not make direct assertions of having an agency relationship with you, but by elimination of Congress and the Supreme Court, you are the only person who could be their principal.

    You, Mr. President, are limited by the oral oath you have taken to the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America. I neither reside nor am I domiciled on that territory, so I would like an explanation of why your agents are contacting me.

    Intending no disrespect to you, your offices and those who hold you in very high esteem, I do not regard you as my President and I do not consider myself obligated to follow any of your Executive Orders, any Bills “which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and you or your predecessors have signed into law and any order or opinion made by the U.S. Supreme Court or any lower court. This is my attempt to avoid the application of martial law.

    You are not my president, because you were elected by the Electoral College to be President of the United States of America pursuant to the authority of Articles of Confederation, a Confederacy of the 50 States and of no application to me, except to be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.

    You are not my president, because you have taken the oral oath to be President of the United States, which may bind you to an employment, but which does not bind you “to support this Constitution” as an executive officer of the United States, pursuant to Article VI of the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

    It is my intention to live as a free inhabitant of one of the 50 states pursuant to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, however, your fame and celebrity as the holder of the most powerful office in the world causes certain employees in the federal government to assert powers over me that they simply do not have, so I cannot live free. I have in the past been a victim of false assertions of power and I seek to avoid any future false claims of authority by federal government employees, by your acknowledgement that your only oath of office was the following oral oath:

    “I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, So help me God.”

    I will be extremely grateful if you will acknowledge that the only oath you have taken to be President of the United States is the one prescribed by the Constitution at Article II Section 1 Clause 8.

    Very truly yours,

    Your Name

     
    • Don

      November 1, 2012 at 11:52 AM

      Excellent Eye Opening Article,& from the who? Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, who claims to be the World’s Greatest Legal Mind. Oh my!! What did Barack Hussein,have to say? Did he request a time extension? It seems if he did, it was granted.

       
    • BAF

      April 3, 2014 at 1:05 AM

      John H.

      “George Washington did not meet the Article II Section 1 Clause 5 residency requirement of 14 Years on February 4, 1789″

      Weren’t the first six presidents grandfathered in because they couldn’t meet presidential requirements?

       
  22. John TWB

    November 25, 2012 at 2:06 AM

    The U.S. Constitution: Tool of Centralization and Debt, 1788-Today
    By Gary North, April 4, 2011

    http://www.garynorth.com/public/7833.cfm

     
  23. Joel Boyce

    November 25, 2012 at 3:15 AM

    I recommend readers visit edrivera.com and read until you understand what Dr. Rivera has discovered: That it is the Organic Laws, not the Constitution, which are the supreme laws of the land of the Confederacy states, land on which we inhabitants live and are domiciled; and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land owned by the United States of America called the “United States”.

    There is ample information provided there to bring you to understand the truth about which part of the country you rightly find your unalienable rights within. It is not any State of the 56 or 57 federal States like the State of California, “CA”, or Washington, D.C. A grand act of deception is to sufficiently confuse the people on which state is theirs, and to bring them to sign under penalty of perjury asking (“applying”) for licenses and permits of all kinds where they must state they “reside” “within the State” of the United States, such “I am a resident of the State of California”. State of California is no expansive territory of land. It is merely those limited number of lands and buildings owned by the United States of America within the outer boundaries of California, the geographic state. That describes the legal limits of each such State of the federal States: they each are land and buildings owned by the USA. When you can get this clear you can soon work your way out of the maze/haze purposely kept in “the public mind” to cause them to err by incorporating themselves into the State by completing such applications offered by one of the States of the United States.

    Joel

     
  24. Bret

    March 13, 2013 at 2:11 PM

    Everyone still has all Rights, if you know what your doing! The United States only resides inside the District of Columbia. Read the Organic Act of 1871. But people keep referring to themselves as United States Citizens. The United States is supposed to be Land Locked inside D.C. The United States is a Corporation, also referred to as a Bank. Later in the 1930,s they came up with the Buck Act which created, “STATE OF GEORGIA, NAME YOUR STATE” which are also Corporations, and tied you to them, out of not knowing. The Organic act of 1871, also created a new form of Government a Democracy and gave you the oppertuinity to join it through the 15th Amendment, the “Right” to vote. So you joined the STATE OF, DECEIT AND CONFUSSION, when you sign up for all those Benifits the government gladly gives you, for giving up your Natural Rights! Acts, Statutes and Codes are Not Law, but Private corporate Policy. The United States is a Foreign government to the United States of North America, and it is not one of its territories. It is owned by the international Bankers. The United States went into complete receivership to the IMF, June 5. 1933. HJR 192

     
  25. Chad

    July 19, 2014 at 7:05 PM

    “Land” has ALWAYS meant ONLY the “land that you own”, eg, “your property”. I don’t know how people come up with these crazy ideas that it means “all land in the universe” or whatever else they conceive it to be. The US has always meant “United States in Congress assembled” – and “law of the land” means US property, which post-Civil War also includes state-owned property. Does anyone even read the organic laws? There are no other laws anyone needs to know. All other laws are created by property owners for their property. Oath Keepers – FRAUD (all US/federal property), Sheriff Mack – FRAUD (US employee), RBN/GCN – FRAUD (only US citizen news/information/views), Anti-Jew/Zionists – FRAUD (US citizen cry-babies). Everyone is being misled.

     
    • Adask

      July 20, 2014 at 11:39 AM

      Whenever anyone talks about any word or words and claims that one word or another has “ALWAYS” had the same definition, that claim is almost “always” ridiculous. The meanings of words is in a constant state of flux and has been for several centuries. That’s a major reason why we have a steady flow of new dictionaries offering the “latest” in ever-changing definitions of particular words.

      For example,

      • Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) defined “Land” as follows:
      LAND. This term comprehends any found, soil or earth whatsoever, as meadows, pastures, woods, waters, marshes, furze and heath. It has an indefinite extent upwards as well as downwards; therefore land, legally includes all houses and other buildings standing or built on it; and whatever is in a direct line between the surface and the centre of the earth, such as mines of metals and fossils. 1 Inst. 4 a; Wood’s Inst. 120; 2 Bl. Com. 18; 1 Cruise on Real Prop. 58. In a more confined sense, the word land is said to denote “frank tenement at the least.” Shep. To. 92. In this sense, then, leaseholds cannot be said to be included under the word lands. 8 Madd. Rep. 635. The technical sense of the word land is farther explained by Sheppard, in his Touch. p. 88, thus: “if one be seised of some lands in fee, and possessed of other lands for years, all in one parish, and he grant all his lands in that parish (without naming them) in fee simple or for life; by this grant shall pass no, more but the lands he hath in fee simple.” It is also said that land in its legal acceptation means arable land. 11 Co. 55 a. See also Cro. Car. 293; 2 P. Wms. 458, n.; 5 Ves. 476; 20 Vin. Ab. 203.
      2. Land, as above observed, includes in general all the buildings erected upon it; 9 Day, R. 374; but to this general rule there are some exceptions. It is true, that if a stranger voluntarily erect buildings on another’s land, they will belong to the owner of the land, and will become a part of it; 16 Mass. R. 449; yet cases are, not wanting where it has been decided that such an erection, under peculiar circumstances, would be considered as personal property. 4 Mass. R. 514; 8 Pick. R. 283, 402; 5 Pick, R. 487; 6 N. H. Rep. 555; 2 Fairf. R. 371; 1 Dana, R. 591; 1 Burr. 144.

      • Black’s Law Dictionary 7th (A.D. 1999) defined “land” as:
      right of pasturage during winter, from Lam¬mas (reaping time) until sowing time.
      lieu land (loo). Public land within indemnity limits granted in lieu of those lost within place limits
      life land. Hist. Land leased for a term measured by the life of one or more persons. — Also termed life-hold.
      mineral land. Land that contains deposits of valuable minerals in quantities justifying the costs of extraction and using the land for mining, rather than agricultural or other purposes.
      place land. See INDEMNITY LAND.
      public land. Unappropriated land belonging to the federal or a state government; the general public domain. Cf. INDEMNITY LAND.
      school land. Public real estate set apart for sale by a state to establish and fund public schools.
      seated land. Land that is occupied, cultivated, improved, reclaimed, farmed, or used as a place of residence, with or without cultivation.
      swamp and overflowed land. Land that, because of its boggy, marshy, fenlike character, is unfit for cultivation, requiring drainage or reclamation to render it available for beneficial use. • Such lands were granted out of the U.S. public domain to the littoral states by acts of Congress in 1850 and thereafter. 43 USCA §§ 981 et seq.
      tideland. See TIDELAND.

      Point 1: there appears to have never been in modern times a single definition for “land”.
      Point 2: the definitions for “land” are constantly changing.

      • In Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ediition, A.D. 1968, the term “United States” is defined as follows:
      “UNITED STATES. This term has several mean¬ings. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U. S. Ohio, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 324 U.S. 652, 89 L.Ed. 1252.

      • The Hooven & Allison case law definition for “United States” persisted through Black’s 4th, 5th, and 6th. The terms “United States of America” and “The United States of America” were not defined in Black’s 4th, 5th or 6th.

      • However, in Black’s 7th (A.D. 1999) something astonishing happened. The definition for “United States” disappeared at the same time that a definition for “United States of America” was added:
      “United States of America. A federal republic formed after the War of Independence and made up of 48 conterminous states, plus the state of Alaska and the District of Columbia in North America, plus the state of Hawaii in the Pacific.”

      • In Black’s 8th (A.D. 2004) “United States” is still not defined, but “United States of America” is defined as:

      “A federal republic formed after the War of Independence and made of 48 contermious [sic] states, plus the state of Alaska and the District of Columbia in North America, plus the state of Hawaii in the Pacific.—Abbr. USA [Cases: United States 1. C.J.S. United States §§ 2-3.]

      • In Black’s 9th (A.D. 2009)—Black’s most recent edition—a definition of “United States” was added as: “Abbr. U.S. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”
      Thus, Black’s 9th at least implies that “United States” and “United States of America” are synonymous by equating the abbreviation “USA” to “U.S”. “United States of America” is defined as:

      “A federal republic formed after the War of Independence and made of 48 conterminous states, plus the state of Alaska and the District of Columbia in North America, plus the state of Hawaii in the Pacific.—Abbr. USA; U.S. [Cases: United States [West Key law cite] 1.]”

      Point: The terms “United States” and “United States of America” have each had more than one definition. At times they’ve been defined differently. At times they each haven’t been defined at all. I doubt that the modern definition of “United States of America” is equivalent to the confederation and perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” and created by the Articles of Confederation

      More, “United States” has sometimes meant the several “United States” (as seen in the 13th Amendment ratified in A.D. 1865) but has also sometimes meant the singular “United States” (as seen in the 14th Amendment ratified in A.D. 1868).

      There might be a handful of exceptions, but virtually all words have multiple definitions and some or all of those definitions are constantly changing.

       
      • Joel Boyce

        July 20, 2014 at 6:37 PM

        Thanks Al.  Chad, well meaning as I imagine you are, you have made a verbal gaffe about the meaning of the word “land” that lowers the discussion on this thread to a reduced level of credibility.  Al’s selection of definitions illustrates the definitions’ variability. Chad reflects the kind of presumptive thought and conclusory finding in his mind typical of people who have not made statutory law their serious study.  How we wish “land”is a word that everyone agrees has only one meaning. Our captors – who we can call “the United States Congress and its minions” – are intent on holding the claim they make on “land”(as is every government) being where and whatever it may be defined to be (i.e. territory, enclave, district, state, property, government property, divisions of districts, real estate, estate, United States, STATE OF_____, COUNTY OF____, CITY OF______, metes and bounds, townships, sections) and such “land” calls a government to force of arms in legal  defense thereof. 

        Were we in a society operating under common law, our common English dictionary could  be the source of our understanding of the meaning of the word “land”. But the legal sophists have seen to it this is not the case in our day.  Common law is verboten in statutory law, claimed  to be absorbed into the statutes, which are written by specialist attorneys, hired by elected legislatures who take their claim to authority from people claiming to be “citizens of the United States”.

        Joel

         
      • Chad

        July 22, 2014 at 10:03 PM

        Thank you very much for taking time to reply. I am not someone that has “never
        studied statutory law as Joel stated below, and have been actively practicing
        law for 12-15 hours/day for decades. “Land” as used in the phrase “law of the
        land”, and more specifically, as used in the US Constitution, refers to US
        owned land, federal land, and no other, merely out of sane and ordinary
        interpretation of anyone declaring a “law of the land”. Nobody ever had any
        right for making “law of the land” for the land owned by anyone else – such
        being the insane interpretation with only a laughable foundation. What I
        stated previously far supersedes any other understanding or definition of the
        term “land” as used in law. But first, let us be reminded that the opening
        phrase is of the Constitution is “We the People of the United States”, which
        specifically denotes a certain set of people making some declarations for
        themselves without any statement to the contrary. At this time in history,
        Europe was under the control of
        kings, with sole ownership of the land in
        their kingdom. As used in the Magna Carta, “law of the land” meant the
        kingdom, the king’s ownership of land, distinct from land owned by other
        kings. After the revolution in the USA, there was no more ownership of land
        by the king, and all sovereignty devolved onto the people themselves, and all
        men were left “equal” in that sovereignty, kings unto themselves (if they had
        land of course, eg, you were not a vagabond, fugitive, etc).

        As stated in 2 US 419 (1794), Chisholm v. Georgia, by John Jay, who should
        know what he was talking about:

        ‘… at the Revolution, the sovereignty [land ownership] devolved on the
        people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country [plural, many people
        making their own laws], but they are sovereigns without subjects [can't make
        law for others on their land], and have none to govern but themselves [under
        private law on private property, and the American common law on public ways,
        eg, the office of Sheriff is a common law office]; the citizens of America
        [not US, but USA] are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the
        sovereignty [a tenant is someone with a right to land/property - which is
        fundamentally tied with the right to make law for that land: sovereignty] …
        Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person
        or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally
        ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign
        actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our
        Governors are the agents of the
        people [not rulers of], and, at most, stand in
        the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their
        sovereigns [unable to make law over others in their status as agents]. Their
        Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have
        none but official [a big word with definite meaning in terms of
        accountability]; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any
        other capacity, than as private citizens [everybody is just a private
        citizen, as the Declaration declared in "created equal"].”

        The simple fact is that after the king was disposed of, there was only the
        common law as an authority, and no other authority to make anyone, or any
        group of people, the ruler of anyone else. Nor has any authority ever been
        declared in any law of the USA or subdivision thereof. Statutorily, federal
        territorial jurisdiction clearly defines “land” in the phrase “law of the
        land”, and it is specifically defined as land that the US owns. The phrase is
        NOT “variable”, it is clear as can be. We are under common law, the only
        problem is that people expect the US govt to provide mechanisms in support of
        it, which it logically cannot do except by fraud – so there you go, you want
        fraud, you got it. And yes, USA is everything, and US is federal owned land,
        generally. But all those definitions don’t change the fact of the term “land”
        in the phrase “law of the land”, which is self-evident. Sovereignty = land
        ownership = authority to make law. And we are all joint tenants in the
        sovereignty of the USA. And we
        are all created equal, and live and stand to
        each other as equals, as private citizens of the USA. Once you step outside
        these bounds, you are in the land of make-believe and will be reaching for
        straws in support.

        Generally, our problems in the USA have always stemmed from people falling for
        feelings before intellect. Freedom is not synonymous with nice, and is easily
        very cruel and lethal, as well as requiring a highly functional capacity for
        personal responsibility. Most people react in shock and horror to the thought
        of someone being a king on their land, and demand rulership to make others
        behave under a democratic authority. And these shortcomings are the enemy of
        freedom – not Obama, not the Jews/Israel, not anything else. And nobody can
        save us, except ourselves (by understanding and enforcing). Once we give up
        on freedom, the only possibility left is slavery under psychopaths (none other
        have the lack of conscience required to “rule over others”).

         
      • Chad

        July 22, 2014 at 10:07 PM

        Sorry for that bad formatting, I don’t know what happened. I did not submit my post pre-formatted with end-of-lines.

         
      • Chad

        July 22, 2014 at 10:31 PM

        PS. Nobody should really care about anything the federal government or courts or the BAR or anyone else says with their definitions, because it’s all THEIR business, the business of US citizens. The concerns of private citizens or “free inhabitants” are their own – and these days – knowing how to stay out of all the entanglements and fraud that the US uses to entrap everyone into their jurisdiction; in addition to enforcing the common law and populating associated lawful offices themselves (like the common-law office of sheriff, which is where “patriot” focus ought to be). Nobody is going to do these things for us, and nobody else is the enemy.

        PPS. I see what happened with the bad formatting previously: it had to do with CR/LF things, and invisible CR characters, sorry about that.

         
      • Joel Boyce

        July 23, 2014 at 2:17 AM

        Chad, your further discussion illuminates several points helpfully.  Yes we sovereign Americans are found as recognized in both the NW Ordinance and the Articles of Confederation as “free inhabitants” (a term which fails to bring the sovereignty into focus, but recognizes the independence of free inhabitants from the fictional state). As the S.C. describes in Chisholm we once were clearly given recognition post the Constitution of 1787.  It is we, who are sovereign,  who inherited the land, by birthright, and it was not the United States of America, precisely because it was our forefathers blood, sacrifice and honor in defending the Declaration of Independence that won the land from King George III.  We who are sovereigns must hold very clearly our spiritual and lawful relationship to land which we inherited by birthright as a free people in consequence of our winning the War of Independence.  

        Those claiming to be “citizens of the United States” admit they are the creations and are therefore construed as the property of Congress, who are consequently treated as willing to be taxed for the franchises offered them by Congress. They must also admit, under penalty of perjury, to be “residents” of the State wherein they “reside”, to spend their lives performing those duties to the temporary State, and to abandon their domicile as inhabitants of this perpetual state. It is helpful to align the different characteristics between both the Citizen and citizen, this state and the State.  We find careful study of the laws, both Organic and statutory, tends to reveal the distinctions between those who are living under Common law and those who, probably due to ignorance of the facts, claim to live under legislative law.  

        Taking your point about land being “land” as in common understanding among people through our common English language helps readers focus on a universally known meaning, and frees the mind of the shadowy sophistries in written laws. Our Common Law is embedded into our common language,  is a fact,  and one of the best kept secrets.  It  causes cognitive dissonance as people fail to realize that murder, rape and burglary are crimes we do not require statutes and officials of government to name, to re-define, and to enforce. We have the language and customs to bring indictments without the States formal statutory courts.  This states crimes are already defined in our common law, long antecedent to the Constitution of 1787 by our English language.  

        It is not difficult to see how the sovereign people, free inhabitants, can be sovereign and free again if we choose to avoid the obfuscations and absurdities of written law.  Broad education of Biblical principles of morality, combined with Common Law customs, while refusing to allow cognitive dissonance with confused citizens of the United States so as to hold on to our certainty of the facts is the way. 

        Joel

         
      • Chad in AK

        July 23, 2014 at 1:15 AM

        As for “United States”, it is defined in the Articles of Confederation, and thus has the same meaning in the Constitution. United States means “United States, in Congress assembled.” Compare to similar wording in the Declaration.

         
      • Chad in AK

        July 23, 2014 at 1:18 AM

        Also, see the Northwest Territory Ordinance for the meaning of “United States”. You can’t go any earlier or more authorative than these definitions.

         
      • Chad in AK

        July 23, 2014 at 1:29 AM

        > “United States” has sometimes meant the several “United States” (as seen in the 13th Amendment ratified in A.D. 1865).

        This is incorrect, as the United States can only make laws for it’s own land. It is singular in this amendment, and only “belief” can create another meaning.

        > but has also sometimes meant the singular “United States” (as seen in the 14th Amendment ratified in A.D. 1868).

        As far an the organic law is concerned, United States always had, and always will have, the meaning of federal territory.

        > There might be a handful of exceptions, but virtually all words have multiple definitions and some or all of those definitions are constantly changing.

        Every definition must be sought within the proper scope of it’s usage, and for the Constitution, that means the preceding 3 organic laws.

         
      • Chad in AK

        July 23, 2014 at 2:04 AM

        Essentially, the DoI and AoC are the only “honest” 2 of the 4 organic laws. After that, the corruption had set in, with the NW Territorial Ordinance being a little more corrupting, and the Constitution being the ultimate in corruption. Patrick Henry wasn’t joking when he said he “smelled a rat”, the king rat being George Washington himself (in charge of the drafting while Jefferson was in France, while also corrupting the 1st presidency by not adopting the Constitution, along with the 1st congress; required by Art. II Sec. 1 Clause 5 and Art. VI Clause 1). George Washington took an oral oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States (things we do for museum pieces), and never to “support”. Washington and Congress claimed Americans were bound to the Constitution, while “they” only pretended to be bound. For example, Washington took the position of President of the United States of America, but 3 weeks later took the oral oath for President of the United States. Washington
        was the predecessor for all modern dictators.

        What can we do about it? Well, almost anything, but just remember, no violence, “because violence is what they want!” ™. Though, it likely is true that nothing can overcome the general ignorance and associated arrogance of mankind, and thus, we are just disposed to suffer the under their collective weight. Unfortunately, civilization puts evolution in reverse, favoring corruption and its supporters, while killing the good and principled.

         
      • Chad in AK

        July 23, 2014 at 2:33 AM

        Also see Art VI Clause 3 for the requirement to support “this Constitution” (presumably the Constitution for the US of A) Also note that this is not the same as the “Constitution of the United States”.

         
      • Adask

        July 23, 2014 at 3:44 AM

        I doubt that the phrase “this Constitution for the United States of America” (as seen in the Preamble to what’s come to be called “The Constitution of the United States”) includes the proper name “Constitution for the United States of America”. I suspect that a proper reading of the phrase may be: “this Constitution [of the United States] is for [the benefit of the perpetual Union stiled] “The United States of America”.

        One of this nation’s great oversights, omissions and even tragedies is that the term “United States” is not clearly and unambiguously defined in the Organic Law. In my view, the term is “described” rather than defined and there appear to be more than one “description”. The Founders apparently presumed that the meaning was so obvious that no definition was required. In retrospect that simple presumption has turned out to be a nearly fatal flaw.

        Generally speaking, the “United States” found in the body of the Constitution and the 13th Amendment appears to me to have been the “several United States” in the sense of several States of the Union. But 14th Amendment appears to reference and possibly create a single, national “United States” that is a single entity, rather than a confederation or Union of several States.

         
  26. Chad

    July 19, 2014 at 7:18 PM

    Not only has the Constitution never been “adopted” (notice how every president never had a written oath, and always errs on the oral oath), but it only applies to “We the People of the United States”, and no other – not to people of the USA, not to free inhabitants. Also notice that there are 3 presidents in the Constitution: President of the US, President of the USA, and Office of President. They are all different. The entire federal govt/Constitution is a fraud, but it is really none of the business of the free-inhabitants of the USA. It’s a matter for the states, eg, the US in Congress assembled, aka, the Senate.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,002 other followers