Image via Wikipedia
The CIA publishes it’s “World Factbook” at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/. This Factbook lists every nation on earth and provides a modest description of each nation’s history, demographics, natural resources, industrial capacity and income. The Factbook is a particularly interesting document because it sometimes seems to tell the truth.
For example, if you visit the CIA World Factbook website, and enter “United States” into the search engine, you’ll see a description of a nation called “United States”. This description includes a map at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html. This map is interesting because, while it includes the location of some major cities and rivers, it does not include any reference to the States of the Union. Admittedly, the map is small. Including the borders of each of the States of the Union might make the map extremely difficult to read.
On the other hand, the “Factbook” is published on the internet and there’s no apparent size limit sufficient to prevent the CIA from providing a map of the “United States” that’s large enough to identify all of the States of the Union–or even all the counties, if they cared to do so.
Therefore, some people believe that the “United States” being described by the CIA map is not merely an oversimplification. Instead, they believe the CIA map is accurate and doesn’t describe any States of the Union because there are none in that particular “United States”. Instead, we see a properly drawn map that corresponds to the singular territory that is sometimes described as “this state”.
• If you go to the page for “United States,” you’ll see a list of headings towards the bottom of the page. The possibility that the “United States” described by the CIA is a single territory rather than a confederation of States of the Union is implicitly supported by the description under the heading entitled “Government:: United States”.
Click that heading and you you’ll see a subheading entitled “Administrative divisions”. Under that subheading you’ll see the “Administrative divisions” of the “United States” defined as follows:
“50 states and 1 district*; Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia*, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming”
First, insofar as there are 51 “Administrative divisions” (one is the District of Columbia), and insofar as those “administrative divisions” are essentially equal in nature, then it would seem to follow that while the 50 non-district administrative divisions are “states,” they are not States of the Union. They are a different kind of “state”. They are presumably, “administrative states” or “administrative territories” or “administrative divisions”—rather than States of the Union.
Second, I know for a fact that, after the Civil War, by the Act of March 30th, A.D. 1870, Congress expressly readmitted “The State of Texas” into representation in the Congress. I also know that the Texas Codes of Criminal (Art. 1.23) and Civil (Rule 15) Procedure expressly declare that all lawful process shall be denominated in the name of “The State of Texas”. I am thereby convinced that the proper name for the State of Union that people casually refer to as “Texas” is “The State of Texas”.
Based on my understanding of what I believe to be the proper name of The State of Texas, I presume that the proper name for the remainder of the States of the Union are similarly styled (“The State of Kansas, The State of Illinois, etc.). I recognized that there may be a couple of exceptions among the original 13 States of the Union. For example, we might see “The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” rather than “The State of Pennsylvania”—but either name would signify a State of the Union. More, I presume that the proper format for either name would be “The State [or Commonwealth] of Pennsylvania” rather than “Pennsylvania” or “STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA” or some such.
I believe that, technically, “Texas” (or TEXAS or even STATE OF TEXAS) signifies a “territory” that may be uninhabited, while The State of Texas signifies a State of the Union that must have some minimum population of people. A “territory” need only include a geographic area—but need not include any people. Antarctica is a “territory” even if it’s uninhabited.
However, if I recall correctly, after the Civil War, the Supreme Court declared in Texas vs. White that a true “State” normally includes 1) a fixed geographic territory; 2) a state government; and 3) the people of that State. But the Supreme Court went on to admit that a “State” could still exist if its territory were no longer “fixed”, and even if it had no “state government”. But a true State cannot exist without its People. Thus, the States of the Union (“The State of Texas,” “The State of Florida,” etc.) include first and foremost people.
On the other hand, a territory (like “Texas” or “TX” or “TEXAS”) could exist without any people. A territory might be populated by persons, legal fictions, citizens, or even animals—but it would not include any men or women (“people”).
Insofar as the CIA’s “administrative divisions” are not States of the Union, it’s possible that these “administrative divisions” are populated by some kind of beings other than People.
• It may be that when the CIA lists the “administrative divisions” as “Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,” etc., rather than “The State of Alabama, The State of Alaska, The State of Arizona,” etc., the CIA is simply attempting a to achieve greater clarity and ease of understanding by identifying the “states” with their “shorthand” names.
On the other hand, it may be that the CIA’s list is absolutely accurate in that while the proper name for a State of the Union might be “The State of Alabama,” the proper name for a corresponding “administrative division” might be “Alabama”. If so, “The State of Alabama” (The State) and “Alabama” (this state) would be two entirely different jurisdictions, places, and venues. More, your rights within one of those venues would be entirely different from your rights in the other. I.e., your rights as one of the “people” within a State of the Union (“The State”) would be almost unlimited, while your rights as a “person” in a territory (“this state”) would almost nonexistent.
• Assuming the CIA has any clue to how the “United States” is actually organized, it appears that “Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,” etc. are not States of the Union, but are instead “administrative districts”. “Administrative districts” of what? Of the singular “United States” seen in the map.
This singular “United States” consist of a single territory that was would be distinct from the several “United States” which would include the several States of the Union.
• Scroll down further under the “Government :: United States” heading and you’ll come to another subheading entitled “Executive branch”. There, the CIA describes the “Executive branch” as follows:
“chief of state: President Barack H. OBAMA (since 20 January 2009); Vice President Joseph R. BIDEN (since 20 January 2009); note – the president is both the chief of state and head of government
“head of government: President Barack H. OBAMA (since 20 January 2009); Vice President Joseph R. BIDEN (since 20 January 2009)
“cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the president with Senate approval
“(For more information visit the World Leaders website )
“elections: president and vice president elected on the same ticket by a college of representatives who are elected directly from each state; president and vice president serve four-year terms (eligible for a second term); election last held 4 November 2008 (next to be held on 6 November 2012)
“election results: Barack H. OBAMA elected president; percent of popular vote – Barack H. OBAMA 52.4%, John MCCAIN 46.3%, other 1.3%;”
Let’s consider some of those descriptions and definitions starting with:
• “chief of state: President Barack H. OBAMA (since 20 January 2009); Vice President Joseph R. BIDEN (since 20 January 2009); note – the president is both the chief of state and head of government”
First, there’s the name format: “Barack H. OBAMA” rather than “Barack H. Obama,” or “BARACK H. OBAMA”. I know that Texas schoolteachers are required by law to provide a certain minimum curriculum to Texas grade school and high school students. I know that that legally mandated curriculum includes teaching children in 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade that a proper name describes a specific man or woman or place. All proper names are capitalized. I.e., the first letter of the name is upper case; the remaining letters are lower case like “Obama”.
I also understand that the legal name for all corporations are signified by all-upper case letters. For example, “GENERAL MOTORS” or “INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES”.
The name “Barack H. Obama” is a proper name. The names “Barack H. OBAMA” and “BARACK H. OBAMA” are not proper names.
Why did the CIA defined the term “chief of state” to include two entities (“OBAMA” and “BIDEN”) which are signified by something other than proper names? Is it possible that the entity holding the position of “chief of state” is deemed to be something other than a man made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
If the names “OBAMA” and “BIDEN” don’t signify something other than “Obama” and “Biden,” why did the CIA employ an improper format? For emphasis? Highlighting? If emphasis was the objective, why not simply print “Obama” in bold or underline it like “Obama” or “Obama”?
I don’t know that “OBAMA” signifies, but insofar as the name is not a proper name, I don’t believe that “OBAMA” is intended to signify a man who is one of the “people”. I can’t prove it, but I believe “OBAMA” signifies something other than a man.
• Apparently, “chief of state” may be a description rather than a title. I’ve read the Constitution a bit over the years, and I don’t recall ever seeing a proviso to elect a “chief of state”. The only constitutional title to any office inhabited by Barack Obama would be “President of the United States” or possibly “President of The United States of America”.
But what if “chief of state” is not merely a description? What if it’s a real title to a new and non-constitutional “office”?
More, the CIA did not describe “OBAMA” as the “chief of states” in the sense of being the chief officer over the several States of the Union. Instead, the term “chief of state” seemingly refers to a single “state” called “United States”. This would be consistent with the map that indicates no States of the Union and the description of “administrative divisions” (presumably of a single “state” or territory) rather than a confederation of the States of the Union.
Note that the CIA’s definition of “chief of state” is somewhat ambiguous because, on the one hand, it lists both “OBAMA” and “BIDEN”. We have two men listed under “chief of state” rather than “chiefs of state”. This duality implies that the office or position of “chief of state” includes both “OBAMA” and “BIDEN”.
On the other hand, the definition of “chief of state” expressly declares, “the president is both the chief of state and head of government”. That second declaration would seem indicate that vice president “BIDEN” is not a co-partner in the office of “chief of state”.
So which is it? Does the “chief of state” include only the president, or does “chief of state” include both the president and vice president?
If “OBAMA” is the only “chief of state,” why is “BIDEN” also listed?
• “head of government: President Barack H. OBAMA (since 20 January 2009); Vice President Joseph R. BIDEN (since 20 January 2009)”
I also have no memory of “head of government” being is a constitutional office. Under the Constitution there are three, co-equal branches of government. Constitutionally, Obama should not be the “head of government,” per se, but merely the chief officer of the “executive branch of government”. Nevertheless, it’s easy to see that Obama would fit the description of “head of government” since he is ultimately in charge of 99% of all governmental resources and activities.
Unlike “chief of state,” the CIA definition of “head of government” is unambiguous. There is no text to suggest that “head of government” is only President Obama. Instead, the “head of government” appears to be a two-person entity that includes both president “OBAMA” and vice president “BIDEN”.
Bear in mind that for most of our history, the candidates for president and vice president ran separately. Thus, it would be possible to elect a Republican president and a Democrat vice president (or vice versa). However, if I recall correctly, the first joint president/vice presidential ticket was Eisenhower/Nixon in A.D. 1952. From that point forward, if a Republican candidate for president were elected, he necessarily had a Republican vice president. If a Democrat president was elected, he’d necessarily have a Democrat VP.
Insofar as the CIA seemingly defines “head of government” as having two person, and the joint-ticket for president since A.D. 1952 have also included two persons, I can’t help wondering if we will vote to elect a constitutional President next November or if we’ll be voting with a “joint-ticket” to elect a two-person “head of government”.
I’m also reminded that whenever two people are formally bound together, the result is a “relationship” rather than two, separate men. I also know that all relationships are legal fictions. If it were true that the joint ticket for the White House includes both “OBAMA” and “BIDEN,” would it fair to say that when we vote for both candidates with a single vote that we are voting for a “relationship”—a legal fiction—rather than two separate men?
This is pure conjecture, but is the reason why the CIA uses the names “Barack H. OBAMA” and “Joseph R. BIDEN” is to signify that “OBAMA” and “BIDEN” are two components of a relationship/legal-fiction created by the A.D. 2008 joint ticket “OBAMA/BIDEN”?
If so, who—or what—will really be elected to the White House this coming November? Two men—“Obama” and “Biden”—one to the office of president, the other to the office of vice president? Or two persons (“OBAMA” and “BIDEN”) acting in concert under the guise of a single relationship/legal-fiction/entity?
If my conjecture seem too far-fetched, here’s another point that provide additional credence: While the CIA took the trouble to define “chief of state” and “head of government” for the “United State,” so far as I know, they did not define “President” or “Vice President”. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
What reason does the CIA have to define “chief of state” and “head of government” of the singular “United States”—but not define “President” and “Vice President”? Is this oversight accidental, or are they doin’ it to us on purpose?
• Admittedly, the CIA’s definition of “elections” includes information that might be deemed sufficient to indirectly define “president” and “vice president”:
“elections: president and vice president elected on the same ticket by a college of representatives who are elected directly from each state; president and vice president serve four-year terms (eligible for a second term); election last held 4 November 2008 (next to be held on 6 November 2012)”
Even the definition of “elections” is a little odd. The CIA is apparently determined to engage in verbal economy by writing “president and vice president elected” rather than writing “the president and the vice president elected”.
But by eliminating the definitive article “the,” the CIA leave open the possibility that the phrase “president and vice president elected” could be interpreted “a president and a vice president elected”. This interpretation could support the conspiracy theory that they were electing “a president” and “a vice president, but they were not electing “the (constitutional) president of the several United States” nor were they electing “the (constitutional) vice president of the several United States.”
Again, the CIA expressly notes that this president and vice president are now elected on the “same ticket”. If the idea that they’re elected on the “same ticket” holds no particular significance, why bother to mention it? Insofar as the CIA has deleted words like “this” from their definitions for the sake of verbal economy, why bother to include a whole phrase referencing “same ticket” unless that phrase holds significant implications? I may be overly suspicions, but I strongly suspect that the CIA’s reference to “same ticket” hints at the election of a single, “OBAMA-BIDEN” relationship/legal fiction.
And who does the electing? A: “a college of representatives”.
Isn’t it odd that the CIA didn’t refer to “the Electoral College”—but merely described “a” (in the indefinite sense of one of many) “college of representatives”. And who exactly does this college “represent”? The CIA doesn’t say. Instead, the CIA tells us that these representatives are “directly elected from”—rather than “by”—“each state”.
Yes, it’s all semantics and, yes, it all seems silly. But the law is all about linguistic precision and the CIA must know that “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
The CIA is not comprised of a bunch of “007s” who are traveling about the world slaying or enemies’ spies and screwing all the women they can find. 99% of the CIA is composed of people who dedicate their lives to reading and writing as means of discovering “intelligence”. More than any other single talent, the vast majority of the CIA must be extremely adept at reading and writing.
It is therefore too incredible to believe that the CIA authors of the “World Factbook” did not write their descriptions of every nation–especially that of the “United States”–with great accuracy and precision. They meant every word they wrote. And yet, when the wrote about the “United States,” their words seem surprisingly indefinite, imprecise and/or ambiguous. The CIA leave us to wonder “what th’ hell are they talkin’ about”?
I do not believe the CIA’s imprecise, indefinite and ambiguous text is accidental–especially in regard to the “United States”. I can’t prove it, but I strongly suspect that the CIA is intentionally writing in a way that is ambiguous. This ambiguity allows the vast majority of unwitting readers to read the CIA text and simply assume that it must mean what the reader presumes it means. That is, when a typical reader sees “administrative divisions” he simply assumes that the CIA must be using “fancy language” to refer to the States (of the Union). The typical reader will not even guess that the CIA’s may be revealing a fundamental truth: that today’s “states” are “administrative divisions” of a single, territorial “United States” rather than individual States comprising the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.
Therefore, if the CIA had written that “president and vice president elected on the same ticket by the Electoral College who are elected directly by the people of each State of the Union,” I’d have little or no basis to quibble. But the CIA’s verbal economy has caused suspicious minds like mine to wonder if I’m leaping to irrational conclusions, or if I’m reading a very precise and objective description of “Government: United States” that implicitly confesses that that “Government” is something other than constitutional.
So, what is the CIA World Factbook showing us? Evidence of innocent, verbal economy? Or evidence couched in a very sophisticated use of language that implies that our current domestic government is not the same government envisioned and created by The Constitution of the United States?
I believe the last alternative is the correct answer.
I believe the CIA is telling the truth, but doing so with such strained use of language that that truth is not immediately apparent to 99.9% of those who read the CIA’s text.
Dennis Craig
January 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM
Alfred, this is an excellent synopsis of what’s being perpetrated upon the “person’s within the territorial jurisdiction of the “United States”. If these “persons” would abandon the mask of the fiction(s) and put back on their “people” Persona, We’d have Our “The United States of America” in full operation in a heart beat. Then the CEO A/k/a OBAMA/BIDEN of the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia being called “United States” would only have jurisdiction over the insular territories and possessions belonging to said “United States”. Game over, they lose.
Jim
January 28, 2012 at 5:54 PM
The factbook introduction should be included in this article.
“The World Factbook is prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency for the use of US Government officials and the style, format coverage, and content are designed to meet their specic requirements.” The Factbook is purposely placed in the public domain,
Don
January 28, 2012 at 7:06 PM
head of government is derived from headcheese.
dasanco
January 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM
Yes, I believe when we get it through our thick skulls that “this state” is NOT a tangible place, meaning we cannot stand in “this state” (well, not physically anyway), we’ll understand the premise by which we conduct our lives.
We currently seem to believe the term “this state” or “the state” refers to a body politic. For instance, here is Bouvier’s (pronounced boo-vee-aye) definition;
STATE, government. This word is used in various senses. In its most
enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united
together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right
and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole
people united into one body politic; (q.v.) and the state, and the people
of the state, are equivalent expressions. 1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39;
3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson’s Lect. 120;
Dane’s Appx. Sec. 50, p. 63; 1 Story, Const. Sec. 361.
However, it is my firm believe we should be using the following definition, from the same source [Bouvier's Law Dictionary], which actually describes the more likely use of this term in law;
STATE, condition of persons. This word has various acceptations. If we
inquire into its origin, it will be found to come from the Latin status,
which is derived from the verb stare, sto, whence has been made statio,
which signifies the place where a person is located, stat, to fulfill the
obligations which are imposed upon him.
2. State is that quality which belongs to a person in society, and
which secures to, and imposes upon him different rights and duties in
consequence of the difference of that quality.
3. Although all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality,
yet there are among them marked differences. It is from nature that
come the distinctions of the sexes, fathers and children, of age and
youth, &c.
4. The civil or municipal laws of each people, have added to these
natural qualities, distinctions which are purely civil and arbitrary,
founded on the manners of the people, or in the will of the legislature.
Such are the differences, which these laws have established between
citizens and aliens, between magistrates and subjects, and between
freemen and slaves; and those which exist in some countries
between nobles and plebeians, which differences are either unknown
or contrary to natural law.
5. Although these latter distinctions are more particularly subject to
the civil or municipal law, because to it they owe their origin, it
nevertheless extends its authority over the natural qualities, not to
destroy or to weaken them, but to confirm them and to render them
more inviolable by positive rules and by certain maxims. This union of
the civil or municipal and natural law, form among men a third species
of differences which may be called mixed, because they participate of
both, and derive their principles from nature and the perfection of the
law; for example, infancy or the privileges which belong to it, have their
foundation in natural law; but the age and the term of these
prerogatives are determined by the civil or municipal law.
6. Three sorts of different qualities which form the state or condition
of men may then be distinguished: those which are purely natural,
those purely civil, and those which are composed of the natural and
civil or municipal law. Vide 4 Bl. Com. 407; 1 Toull. n. 170, 171;
Civil State.
And so that we may see how the terms “this state” and “person” may intertwine, let us look at Bouvier’s definition of PERSON;
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are
called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly
synonymous terms.
Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not,
whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex,
&c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in
society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him,
and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person.
1 Bl. Com. 455; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L. R. 488; Woodes. Lect.
116; Bac. Uses 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word “persons” is spoken of in legislative acts,
natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the
context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or
women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions,
unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be
appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except
those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising.
Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves.
Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to
say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A
slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs.
Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But
sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in
contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a
riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q.v.) and aliens, (q.v.)
when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are
considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead;
Vide Civil Death; Outlaws; and Infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when
examined as to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into
parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and
masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168;
1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.
So, when a man steps into the role of legal person (it matters not its origin), it can be said, that man has a rank, a status or state, or is there by a condition and thereby a status/state. And if an agreement, act, statute, code or whatever were to reference this man’s attribute, would not the term “the state” or “this state” be adequate?
Perhaps an example is in order?
(A)(1) No person, except those expressly exempted under sections
of the Revised Code, shall operate any motorvehicle upon a public road or highway or any public or private property
used by the public for purposes of vehicular travel or parking in this state
unless the person has a valid driver’s license issued under
.So if we simply the pertinent parts, we can condense the code section to;
No person shall operate any motor vehicle in this state unless the person
has a driver's license.
First, let's look at this with the possibility of "this state" been a place. If that be the case, then the word "state" would be a pronoun. A generic noun used to replace the previously identified specific object (noun).
For example: The 1969 Mustang GT was very fast, “this car” could reach a speed in excess of 120 MPH in less than 15 seconds.
Here the term "this car" is a generic declaration of the same object "1969 Mustang GT".
So, if we apply the same logic to our code section, what possible object is being re-declared by the use of the pronoun "state". Well, I see no formal State declared (e.g. Ohio, Texas). And I see no specific governmental body (e.g. US or Highway Patrol). But I do see a "rank", "status" and/or "condition", defined as “person” !
So, let's see if we substitute the terms of the above definitions (STATE and PERSON) into our example code if it might be made a bit more generic.
No (man with a ranking) shall operate any motor vehicle in this (status) unless the (man with a ranking) has a driver's license.
And what might the definition of RANKING reveal;
RANK. The order or place in which certain officers are placed in the army
and navy, in relation to others, is called their rank.
2. It is a maxim, that officers of, an inferior rank are bound to obey
all the lawful commands of their superiors, and are justified for such
obedience. Bouv. 6th, 1856
So ... it would seem that by this example, "this state" is a condition or status created within the person's rank. Or to abstract that at bit for clarity, we might say "the status of officer creates a condition or state" or " the 'person' enables 'the state' ". And if we wanted to reference that person's obligation through that ranking, (for example the obligation of an officer to obey his superior’s rules), couldn't we generically call the those "conditions" "this state"
"Private, I don't care what you did before you enlisted, but there will be
no smoking in this state."
The state is not a place, but the conditions of person’s role or ranking.
Test this whenever you can. If you come across a statute or code using the term "the state" or "this state", rather than presuming it is a pronoun to a probably unstated physical State (e.g. Ohio, Texas, etc.), see if it could actually reference a status or condition within the paragraph itself. Bet you'll have a hard time finding any examples to the contrary.
And one last note;
For those of you tempted to use the argument, “It is the statutes or codes of the State of (e.g. Ohio, Texas, etc.) that the term “is state” is referencing. That would be redundant and ambiguous. If we are to presume that all the content of the Revise Code of State of is self-referencing, then the use of “this state” for the purpose of identifying the same, would be redundant and ambiguous. Or simply stated, Texas Law would NOT need to include “WHEN IN TEXAS” to the end of each of THEIR laws. (e.g. TEXAS LAW: Do not drive in excess of 70 mph WHEN IN TEXAS). Using the phrase “in this state” for that purpose is unfounded and redundant. And definitely a no-no as defined by the maxims of statutory construction.
IMHO and AWIP
HowardBeale
January 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Thanks for the brilliant discussion of the subtleties that are being used to subvert the country’s constitution and its legal system. Seems to me the truth has become so buried in nuances and legalese that the common person no longer has the training to readily understand it. Add to that the mind control and brain numbing chemicals we are exposed to, and it makes for a very uninformed and distracted populace. I would say mission accomplished for the CIA and other alphabet agencies who are founded and operate in darkness.
ItsMe
January 30, 2012 at 1:31 AM
Questions of discovery which clearly expose the Achilles’ Heel of all Evil Legal Systems throughout history, and provide “The Solution Law” that can permanently put an end to all such systems.
Questions of discovery:
1. Who are the people specifically educated and trained to plan and create the deception and thereby constructive fraud (i.e., Words-of-Art), within Laws, statues, regulations and contracts for benefit of the 1%? Answer: DUH, It’s the Attorneys.
2. Who are the people who write the laws using legalese (i.e., Words-of-Art)? Answer: The Attorneys (i.e., working for the international banking cartel, special interest
corporate and government lobbies), and also the Politicians (i.e., who are the members of Congress for either the deceptive State or Federal corporate- governments, and who are mostly educated to be Attorneys).
3. Who are the people who write the contracts using legalese (i.e., Words-of-Art)?
Answer: The Attorneys
4. Who are the people who enforce the laws and contracts (i.e., legalese using Words- of-Art)? Answer: Judges (i.e., who are mostly Attorneys), and also the well armed
Cops (i.e., who many of which are ignorant-of-the-laws they are mandated to enforce, and who in most cases no longer adhere to their Oath to preserve and protect the People, Constitution, and the lawfully enacted Laws of the united States of America).
5. Are most corporation, banking or government managers and leaders educated or trained in legalese (i.e., Words-of-Art)? Yes or No Answer: No
6. Then ask yourself: Could any system of deception and fraud that is this deliberate,
long-term and massive, actually be planned, written, implemented and
managed without the expertise, full knowledge, will and intent of Attorneys? Yes or
No Answer: No
IMPORTANT POINTS:
The Attorneys are the Achilles’ Heel of the 1%, and the single most important weakness that the 99% must come to recognize, understand and effectively exploit, if they are going to win the war being perpetrated against them by the 1%.
When the 99% are able to permanently control the Attorneys, they will be able to permanently end the centuries long Rain of Terror perpetrated by the 1%.
The Solution Law:
Basis and Key Elements: The people in the 1% will only start and then continue to behave honestly when they clearly understand that:
they are constantly under deep suspicion by the 99%, and everyone in the 99% is watching them closely, and
they will be swiftly and severely indicted, prosecuted, convicted and punished whenever they participate in Acts of Evil against the 99%, and
all Attorneys will be continually, consistently and strictly regulated and watched by experts (i.e., selected by the 99% and paid for by the 1%), regarding every word of legalese (i.e., Words-of-Art), any Attorney creates.
Self-Policing Motivation and Punishment of non-compliance with the Law:
Any time an Attorney is lawfully convicted of a crime against the 99%:
that Attorney will be lawfully executed by means of a public hanging, and anyone who have been lawfully convicted of knowingly and willingly aiding the convicted Attorney, shall also be lawfully executed at the same time as the convicted
Attorney, by means of the same public hanging.
the 99 other Attorneys who are within the pre-determined 100 Attorney Peer Group of the convicted Attorney will be imprisoned for 10 years with no possibility of appeal or parole (i.e., with all related costs of imprisonment paid for by all Attorneys).
Incentive: The Solution law will provide strong motivation for the Vermin (i.e., Attorneys), to self-police all of the actions of their peers or face potential imprisonment or death for not doing so.
Reward: On the 1st 100 year anniversary of the Attorneys achieving a clean record, the 99% will stop referring to them as Vermin, however the 99% will keep the The Solution Law in place.
Pop Quiz:
Question: Upon which people who are members of the 1%, must the 99% strictly enforce “The Solution Law”?
Answer: All members of the 1%, but first, foremost and consistently, the Attorneys.
Truth and Reality Check:
The 1% absolutely FEAR being exposed and facing the resulting anger and wrath from the
99%, because the 1% clearly understand, that it is all about the numbers. Numbers that the 1% do not have, and can never match.
Example: 310 million people in the USA X 1% = 3,100,000 of them verses 310 million people in the USA X 99% = 306,900,000 of the People
Given the numbers above: Which side would you want to be on during say, the
French Revolution…. or the next American Revolution?
Logically Speaking: How could the 1% win, if even 20% of the 99% know the truth and effectively organized and mobilized to stop the 1%?
Patrick
January 30, 2012 at 8:31 AM
I got a better idea…take the LAW into your own hands…follow it. Disclaimer: My use of the word Law means the only law, gods law, thus when I take that into my hands it simply means I will get you to honor me because I won’t stop honoring you. This is also known as identifying your self as the People as Dennis Craig touched on.
Unfortunately he’s waiting around for the fictions to stop playing make believe. Did you when you were a child? These are children playing their childish games and we’re all going a long. Fictions are not masquerading as the People, you and I have been. Perhaps when we see this, and we discover the true power within we can demonstrate to our brothers and sisters how we are supposed to act towards one another. If we have enough time…
Doug
January 31, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Fascinating isn’t it … that we can spend so much time and effort trying to get a handle on truth ? The laws should be written by 4 year olds.
So many good folks have been taken down by the double talking, back stabbing, so-called authorities entrusted to protect and serve it makes me sick.
Great article Al Adask ! (With some pretty good commentary following).
Thanks to everyone so concerned !