More Evidence of “this state”

Image via Wikipedia

It appears that the government has abandoned the States of the Union (each loosely referred to as “The State”) and substituted a new set of territories and/or administrative divisions of a single territory owned by the “United States” that are each generally referred to as “this state”.  If you’re not already familiar with this theory, you can find other articles offering more explanation at “The State vs this state“.

Under this theory, it appears that “The State of Texas” (a State of the Union) has been supplanted by the territory of “Texas,” “TEXAS,” “STATE OF TEXAS” and/or “TX”.  Similar replacements have apparently taken place for all of the States of the Union.

If the theory sounds unbelievable, there is supporting evidence.  For example, the Texas Tax Code declares in part:

 TITLE 2. STATE TAXATION

SUBTITLE E. SALES, EXCISE, AND USE TAXES

CHAPTER 151. LIMITED SALES, EXCISE, AND USE TAX

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 151.001.  SHORT TITLE.  This chapter may be cited as the Limited Sales, Excise, and Use Tax Act.  Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 1545, ch. 389, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982.

. . . .

 Sec. 151.004.  ”IN THIS STATE“.  “In this state” means within the exterior limits of Texas and includes all territory within these limits ceded to or owned by the United States.  Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 1545, ch. 389, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982.

 

 

L.A. Judges Guilty of R.I.C.O.

Image by dbking via Flickr

Former U. S. Prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Ph.D. appears in a video interview.  He outlines criminal activity of members of the California Judiciary that qualifies as “organized crime” and explains why their activities should qualify for prosecution under the RICO ACT ( Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).

Mr. Fine complains about L.A. Judges in particular, and California judges, in general.  But the problem of judicial corruption is hardly confined to California.  Mr. Fine’s allegations could apply to most judges in most states throughout the U.S..

Most of the allegedly “honorable” men and women sitting on the benches of this country’s “judicial” system are nothing but racketeers.  They sit as administrators and employees of private entities rather than officers of the “judicial” branch of the de jure governments of “The States” of the Union.

 

Post Roads within The State or “in this state”?

Image via Wikipedia

Under Article I Section 8, Clause 7 of The Constitution of the United States, the Congress has the power “To establish Post Offices and post Roads“

So far as I know, “post roads” continued as the fundamental means of identifying a place for the delivery of mail until A.D. 1963 when they were supplanted by addresses associated with Zip Codes.  It’s not clear to me whether “post roads” still exist.  Although they are unused and almost unremembered, I suspect that “post roads” are still available if you care to use them to address your mail.  Technically, “post roads” would seem to have been abandoned and unused for almost 50 years.  Constitutionally, Congress not only has the power, they would seem to have the duty to “establish” and maintain “post roads”.

 

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Image via Wikipedia

Under the “The State/this state” hypothesis, the term “The State” is intended to signify any one of the 50 States of the Union (such as “The State of Texas” or “The State of Florida”).  The term “this state,” on the other hand, is intended to signify administrative districts (like “TX” or “FL”) of a singular territory that spans the entire U.S..   (For more insight into this hypothesis, see, “The States of the Union vs. The Territory” at http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/the-states-of-the-union-vs-the-territory/#more-7133).

According to the “The State/this state” hypothesis, the federal gov-co has supplanted “The States” of the Union with the administrative districts of a singular national territory.  It is believed that the feds caused this change because, under Article 1 of the federal Constitution, Congress has limited and enumerated powers with regard to “The States” of the Union, but under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has virtually unlimited powers over the territories.

 

Bond vs U.S.

Image via Wikipedia

Surely, there must be some mistake.

On June 16th, A.D. 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the case of Bond v U.S..  This case involves the standing of private individuals to invoke the 10th–and, to lesser degree, the 9th–Amendments.  The total document (syllabus, opinion and concurring opinion) released by the Supreme Court is 19 pages.

As I read that case, I find excerpts on almost every page that strike me as mind-boggling, explosive and even revolutionary.  I can’t recall reading another case in the past 28 years that filled me with such excitement, glee and even hope.

I see this decision as so extraordinary, that I can’t imagine how the Supreme Court (in a 9 to 0 decision (!!!)), would dare write this opinion without fearing for their lives.

This case seem so good, that my fundamental reaction is:  Surely, there must be some mistake.

 

The States of the Union vs. the Territory

Image via Wikipedia

I embrace the fantastic hypothesis that the federal government has created a second, alternative set of “states” that are, in fact, administrative districts of a “territory” rather than States of the Union.  In essence, this “State-vs-territory” hypothesis argues that “TX” is a territory while “The State of Texas” is a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.  Whichever of these venues (territory or State of the Union) that you inhabit will determine your rights, your duties, your taxes, your liabilities to arbitrary, unlimited government or your liberty within a limited government.

The idea of two, alternative “venues” (the States of the Union and territories) is at least fifteen years old.  So far as I know, the first person to advocate this concept was Paul Andrew Mitchell (writing under the pen name of “Mitch Modeleski”) in his book The Federal Zone.  The concept was picked up and amplified by Richard Kegley, TJ Henderson, Ed Wahler and Dennis Craig Bynum in A.D. 2006 in a book entitled USA v US.  I’ve studied and explored this concept for at least 10 years and, fantastic as it seems, I believe this hypothesis to be true.

I realize that the idea that our own federal government would intentionally “overthrow” the governments of the States of the Union, supplant those State governments with territorial administrative agencies seems too fantastic to believe.  I’ve spent at least 10 years looking for evidence to disprove this incredible hypothesis.  But after ten years of looking all I can tell you for sure is that: 1) It looks like a duck; 2) it walks like a duck; 3) it quacks like a duck; and 4) it goes good with orange sauce.  I still can’t prove that it’s a duck, but I’ve seen nothing in 10 years to suggest that it’s not.

 

Washington DC Boundary Stones

Image via Wikipedia

Here’s a curious little article concerning the actual boundaries of Washington DC.  The article is interesting in the context of theories that the Zip Code and/or the “territories” have been expanded to essentially allow the federal government confined to Washington DC to exert an extra-territorial jurisdiction over the whole country.  I.e., what would happen if you established that your venue was both physical and absolutely external to the physical boundaries of Washington DC?  Could an express declaration of the physical boundaries of Washington DC enhance the strength of any lawsuits intended to keep the federal gov-co at bay?  Once those boundaries are established, what is the gov-co’s authority to exercise “extra-territorial jurisdiction” beyond those boundaries?

http://www.boundarystones.org/

 

Gerald Celente: The 1st Great War of the 21st Century Has Begun

Gerald Celente (trendsresearch.com) relies on a secret technology that tracks scores of economic and political indicators, balances them, and then produces a resulting prediction.  He’s achieved considerable fame by making remarkably accurate predictions.

His video and radio presentations of his predictions are generally brash, but witty and bemused.

This prediction is different.  This is the first time I’ve seen Celente so angry, so furious.  He seems almost desperate, almost terrified.  There are moments when he appears almost ready to cry. He looks like he’s caught a glimpse of End Times.

If Celente’s emotionally-charged presentation is any indication, the world may be very close to the “1st Great War of the the 21st Century.”

Video

00:04:12

If the YouTube video (above) has been pulled, try this link:

http://www.paulstramer.net/2011/04/first-great-war-of-21st-century.html

 

Like Beauty, Treason is in the “Eyes” (or Venue) of the Beholder

Image via Wikipedia

Here’s a 5 minute video describing the extent of Arizona’s problem with the illegal aliens, Arizona’s recent legislation to deal with the problem and inhibit the invasion by illegal aliens, and President Obama’s outrageous decision to sue Arizona so as to allow that invasion to continue.  http://www.youtube.com/embed/tsH8xvjTAlo

I very much look forward to reading the lawsuit filed by the Obama administration against “Arizona” because I believe the key the case may be “venue”.  That is, I believe that the case may hinge on whether “Arizona” is, or is not, a State of the Union.

 

IRS Attorney/Prosecutor Interview

Image via Wikipedia

Attached is a 35-minute audio recording of a very insightful confrontation between a woman who appears to be an IRS attorney and/or prosecutor, and Marc Stevens who is assisting someone threatened with trial by the IRS.

This is too good to be ignored.  If you’re interested in the IRS you must listen–probably more than once.