RSS

The States of the Union vs. the Territory

14 Jun

Various Federal Reserve Notes, c.1995. Only th...

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.

•  I strongly suspect that the key to the State-vs-territory hypothesis is Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States which declares in part: “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

Note that this prohibition applies only the States of the Union (“No State shall . . . .).  Only the States of the Union were then (and now) prohibited from making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.  The Constitution offers no similar prohibition on currencies issued or used by the federal government, Washington DC, or the territories.

Only the “States” (of the Union) must use gold and silver coin as a tender in payment of debts.  The failure by the Founders to impose the gold/silver mandate on the federal government, Washington DC and the territories may be the single most important flaw in the Constitution.

•  Given that Article 1.10.1 of the Constitution mandates the use of gold and silver coin within the States of the Union, what happened to the governments of the States of the Union when, in A.D. 1933, the federal government removed the gold from domestic circulation and then, in A.D. 1968, the feds removed silver from domestic circulation?

How could the governments of the States of the Union continue to function without gold and silver coin in circulation?  How could State governments impose a fine, a fee or a tax in a currency other than gold and silver without violating the Constitution?  How could the governments of the States of the Union pay their employees, officers and contractors with currency other than gold or silver coin and not violate the Constitution?

•  Given that Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 has never been amended and the States of the Union are still prohibited from making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, one of two things must be true:

Either,

1) Today’s governments of the States of the Union act unconstitutionally every time they impose a tax, fine, fee, or pay their bill with Federal Reserve Notes; or,

2) What currently pass for governments of the States of the Union, are actually governments of something other than the States of the Union and thus not bound by Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 to use only gold/silver coin.

For example, if the current “Texas” were deemed to be a territory rather than a State of the Union, there would be no mandate to use gold/silver in the territory of “Texas”.  That constitutional mandate would only exist within a State of the Union.

So which is it?  Does your “state” government violate the Constitution every time it touches a Federal Reserve Note?  Or is your “state” government not really a government of a State of the Union?

•  I believe that under the pretext of a national “emergency” (there was no gold or silver in circulation so the governments of the States of the Union were rendered insolvent and inoperable), the feds installed “territorial governments” (actually administrative districts) to provide emergency governmental services to the people of the States of the Union.

But note that, if so, this emergency was caused by the federal government’s removal of gold and silver coin from domestic circulation.  How much of an “emergency” can there be if the “emergency” was intentionally caused by the federal gov-co?

Why do we have congressmen, senators, state legislators?   To legislate; to pass new laws.

Why do we need new laws?  Primarily, to resolve unexpected “emergencies”.

I.e., hurricane Katrina attacked New Orleans, and the Louisian and federal legislatures passed new laws to deal with that emergency.

The number of people injured or killed from brain injuries suffered in motorcycle crashes is perceived by some to constitute an “emergency”.  The “state” or federal legislatures respond to this emergency by requiring motorcycle operators to wear helmets.

Virtually every law is passed as an attempt to resolve a current “emergency” and restore the nation (or State) to a condition of peace.

We can reasonably say that the fundamental purpose of all legislatures is to pass laws to resolve and eliminate emergencies.

And yet, when President Franklin Roosevelt removed the gold coin in A.D. 1933, that removal was justified by a declared “national emergency”.  Under the pretext of the “emergency,” the feds could effectively violate Article 1.10.1 of the Constitution by removing the gold the governments of the States of the Union needed to function.

So far as I know, that purported emergency of A.D. 1933 persists to this day.

That A.D. 1933 emergency was made even more “emergent” with the removal of silver coin from domestic circulation in A.D. 1968 (while the nation’s attention was fixed on the Viet Nam war).

So, why is it that the legislatures of the “states” and congress (whose fundamental duty is to pass laws that resolve and end emergencies)  have failed to end the “emergencies” of A.D. 1933 and A.D. 1968?  Why have these “emergencies” persisted (in the case of gold) for almost eighty years?

Answer:  Because the federal government wants to rule the whole country as our one true sovereign.  The feds find it inconvenient to admit that under the Constitution, the federal government is inferior to the governments of the States of the Union.  The feds despise the idea that the federal government is intended (by the Constitution) to serve the States of the Union rather than be their master.  By removing the gold/silver coin from circulation, the federal government rendered the governments of the States of the Union insolvent and in operable.  The States of the Union (the People) are still here, but their State governments are insolvent and abandoned.

Without our State governments to protect us against the federal government, we are reduced to the status of 14th Amendment citizens of the United States living in territories.

Under Article 4.3.2, Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over all of the territories.   Exclusive legislative jurisdiction essentially means that there can be unlimited government imposed by Congress in the territories.   Under the pretext of a national emergency, we are all presumed to have been reduced to the status of subjects to Congress, living in territories rather than States of the Union.

•  I can’t yet prove it, but I believe that by removing the gold (A.D. 1933) and silver (A.D. 1968), the federal government waged war against and effectively destroyed the governments of the States of the Union. If so, the removal of gold and silver coin from domestic circulation constitutes treason.

Treason is defined at Article 3 Section 3 Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

The highlighted words “them” and “their” are plural.  They refer back to the term “United States”.  The plural terms “them” and “their” tell us that the term “United States” is also plural.  Thus, the only treason defined in the federal Constitution is treason against the several “United States”—i.e., treason against the several States of the Union.  There is no constitutionally-defined treason against the federal government, Washington DC or the territories.  The Founders apparently held the federal government in such low regard that they didn’t bother to protect it against treason.

Thus, when the federal government removed the gold (A.D. 1933) and the silver (A.D. 1968) from domestic circulation, they effectively waged war upon and destroyed the governments of the States of the Union.  That’s treason.

If the State-vs-territory hypothesis is valid, every president, senator, congressman and federal judge since A.D. 1968 have supported the creation and use of an alternative, non-constitutional, de facto venue (the territorial “states”) to supplant the de jure venue of the States of the Union.  If so, every president, senator, congressman and federal judge since A.D. 1968 are arguably guilty of treason against the several United States (the States of the Union).

•  Some of these treasonous whores in the cathouse on the Potomac might try to defend themselves by observing that the loss of gold/silver coins and the imposition of Federal Reserve Notes was all quite legal because the federal government passed various “legal tender” laws to “legalize” the use of Federal Reserve Notes.

These treasonous whores would be right.

Congress has passed various legal tender laws that legalize the use of Federal Reserve Notes.  Truly, the use of FRNs is all very legal.

But legal where?

Congress cannot amend the Constitution by mere statute.  Only the People can amend the Constitution (the People’s law).  The People’s law (State and federal constitutions) is higher than the government’s statutes.

The People’s law (the federal Constitution) continues to mandate that the States of the Union can’t make anything but gold/silver coin a tender in payment of debts.  But, in an enormous oversight, the People did not think to impose the same restriction on the federal government, Washington DC or the territories.

Thus, it is still unconstitutional for governments within the States of the Union to use anything but gold and silver coin, but it’s quite legal (under legal tender laws) for the administrative governments of territories to use Federal Reserve Notes.

Remember?  Under Article 4.3.2, the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories.  Within the territories, there is virtually unlimited government under Congress.  Within the States of the Union, there is limited government.

• What do you have now?  Limited—or unlimited—government?

The answer depends on where you are.  Are you living within the borders of a State of the Union?  Or are you living in a territory?

Do you live within the “real” world of the States of the Union?  Or do you live in the artificial, alternate reality of the emergency/fictional “territories”?

So far as I can tell, the system presumes that you are living in “territorial states” rather than States of the Union.  But this presumption is based on the fact that most people, by their mere conduct, have manifested their supposed intention to live and do business “in this state” (the territory).

So far as I can tell, the system cannot mandate that you and I must abandon our States of the Union to enter into a “territory”.  So far as I can tell, it is presumed that you and I have voluntarily and intentionally left the States of the Union to enter into the emergency venue of the territories.

In truth, there’s not one man in a thousand who even imagines the possibility that he might be living in a “territory” rather than a State of the Union.  Assuming the State-vs-territory hypothesis is valid, the presumption that the people have voluntarily and intentionally abandoned the States of the Union to voluntarily enter the territories of unlimited government is absurd since not one man in one thousand even suspects that such dichotomy exists.

Of course, if the State-vs-territory hypothesis is false, and there is no such dichotomy, it makes perfect sense that virtually no one (other than a few nuts like me) even imagines the existence of territorial “states” to supplant the States of the Union.

But if the hypothesis is true, the government’s presumption of voluntary and intentional choice to enter into the “territorial-states” must be false since virtually no one suspects the existence of these alternative territorial-states and therefore virtually no one can be presumed to have voluntarily and knowingly entered into a venue that they don’t even know to exist.

•  Thus, if the State-vs-territory hypothesis is correct, then the system not only depends on there being two venues (States of the Union and territories) but also presumes your right to choose at any time to enter one venue and leave the other.  If so, then if you can learn how to manifest your intention to conduct all of your affairs within a State of the Union, you may not be subject to the administrative rules and regulations of the unlimited territorial governments currently masquerading as governments of the States of the Union.

For example, within the States of the Union, there appear to be no licensed attorneys.

In fact, the courts have repeatedly declared the practice of law to be a “common law right” open to any, without license.

Indeed, the practice of law is a common law right in some venues—but which ones?

Answer:  within the States of the Union.  So far as I can see, you and I can practice law without a license within any of the States of the Union.

However, the practice of law is not a “common law right” in the territories.  If you want to practice law in the territories, you need a license.

Thus, within the borders of The State of Texas, I may not need a license to practice law.  But, in “TX” or “STATE OF TEXAS” (the territorial “state”), if I’m caught practicing law without a license, I could be fined or perhaps even imprisoned.

For reasons I won’t get into here, I’m about 98% confident that licensed attorneys can only practice in the territories.  Based on that high level of confidence, I’m about 90% confident that virtually all modern licenses (drivers, plumbers, doctors, electricians, cosmetologists, etc.) are issued in the territorial venue.  They are not issued within the States of the Union.

If I’m right, no drivers license would be required to operate an automobile on the right of way within The State of Texas, but you might be fined or imprisoned for operating a motor vehicle on a highway in the territory of “TX” or “STATE OF TEXAS”.

More, how could a drivers license be mandated within a State of the Union unless that license was issued by the de jure government of that State of the Union?

But, how could your drivers license be issued by a de jure government of a State of the Union if you were required to pay a fee for that license and the fee was paid in Federal Reserve Notes rather than gold and silver coins?  If the fee paid for your drivers license was not denominated in gold/silver coin (as per Article 1.10.1 of the federal Constitution), then either 1) your license fee is unconstitutional within The State of the Union; or, 2) you legally paid that fee in FRNs to some administrative agency of a territory.

What about income taxes?  Today, it’s generally believed that the 16th Amendment authorizes the income tax.  However, in one of the big lawsuits involving income taxes (Brushaber??) the Supreme Court declared in part that the 16th Amendment granted no new powers to the federal government . . . ?!

How th’ hell is that possible?  The Constitution is amended by the 16th Amendment and yet, that Amendment grants no new powers to Congress?!  Again, how th’ hell is that possible?

In a one venue world, that question would seem impossible to answer.

However, in a two-venue world of the State-vs-territory, I suspect that the answer is fairly simple:  the 16th Amendment granted no new powers to Congress within one of the two venues.

The 16th Amendment granted no new powers to Congress within the territories.  Under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has always had exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories.  Congress has virtually unlimited powers in the territories.  Congress has always had constitutional power to lawfully impose a sales tax, income tax, value-added tax, or any other damn tax they want to impose in the territories.  Thus, the 16th Amendment granted Congress no new powers—in the territories.

The extent to which the 16th Amendment granted powers to Congress within the States of the Union is not yet clear to me.  However, I’m about 70% confident that the obligation to pay income taxes may exist only in the territories—but not within the States of the Union.   If that notion is roughly correct, then it might follow that if you can properly establish your activities are all taking place within the venue of a State of the Union, you might not be obligated to pay income taxes.

•  If the removal of gold and silver coin constitutes and attack on the States of the Union, and if such attack constitutes an act of “levying war” against the States of the Union, then the feds may be liable to charges of treason.

I’ve already analyzed (and dismissed) on defense against such treason:  the idea that use of FRNs is justified by “legal tender” statutes.  The feds can’t amend the Constitution by statutes.  Only the people can amend the Constitution.  The Article 1.10.1 mandate for gold/silver coin should—within the States of the Union—trump any federal statute that authorizes the use of “legal tender”.

But I can imagine another defense that the feds might rely on to defeat charges of having committed treason against the States of the Union.  This one may be both their strongest defense and our strongest legal basis for hope.

The feds might argue that:

1) The decisions to remove the gold and silver from domestic circulation were not cynical attempts to destroy the governments of the States of the Union, but rather unfortunate acts made necessary by external forces (foreign bankers?) who precipitated an economic “emergency”.

2) Faced with the unfortunate and unplanned (of course) absence of governments of the States of the Union, the federal gov-co therefore offered to provide an alternative set administrative territories as a convenience for the People of the States.  (The feds, after all, are here to help us.)

3) Thus, the fed would not impose a territory upon the People of the States.  Imposing that territory would be absolute evidence of treason committed by the federal government against the States of the Union.  Instead, the feds would leave it to the People to choose to enter into the territories (which provide the “convenience” of administrative agencies to resolve conflicts) or remain within the States that now lacked virtually any government.   If you needed the convenience of a “governmental agency,” the territory was there to help you.  If, on the other hand, you were self-governing and didn’t need the convenience of territorial government, you might choose to conduct your affairs within a State of the Union.  (It might even be argued that by choosing to rely on the “convenience” of administrative agencies of “this state” (territory), that the People might be guilty of treason, but the feds were not.  The people who chose to enter the territories, might even be construed as “enemies” of the States of the Union.  This might offer some foundation for the application of the Trading With The Enemy Act to the American people.)

4) But—in any case—whether the People are or are not now deemed to be “enemies” of the States of the Union—the feds primary defense to charges of treason might be that, in a state of “emergency” (loss of gold/silver coin and consequent loss of the governments of the States of the Union) the feds merely provided an option (territories) as a “convenience” to the People.  If such “option” shields the feds against charges of treason, that same option necessarily provides an opportunity for knowledgeable men and women to choose to “stay” within the States of the Union and thereby avoid the administrative regulations of the territory.

All of this is hypothetical.  All of this is easily said as a general theory, but very difficult to execute as a practical reality.

But it does appear that the entire system must rely on the gov-co’s presumption that each of us voluntarily chooses, each day, to conduct our affairs in the territory rather than within the State of the Union.  I have not yet found any constitutional basis for forcing us to abandon our States of the Union to enter into “this state” (territory).  I could be wrong, but I’m convinced that the system must rely on the presumption that we have voluntarily left the State of the Union to enjoy the convenience (credit cards, insurance, checking accounts, drivers licenses, public utilities, limited liabilty etc.) of the territories.

Of course, by voluntarily choosing to enter into the “convenient” territories, you must also waive your standing as a man to claim the God-given, unalienable Rights.  As an “immigrant” into the territories, you must accept your status as a “person” whose rights are civil and granted (sometimes temporarily or conditionally) by what passes for government.

But, Hey—who would turn down the pottage of territorial convenience just to hang onto their God-given, unalienable Rights . . . ?

A:  Thomas Jefferson.

George Washington.

James Madison.

The signers of the “Declaration of Independence”.

The signers of The Constitution of the United States.

And maybe you, me and anyone else who’s serious about their faith and their relationship to the God of the Bible.

•  In the final analysis, the choice between living in the States of the Union and occupying the territories is not a political choice, or a legal choice, or even a choice of convenience.  It’s a spiritual choice.

The god of the territories is Congress and/or even Satan, himself

The God of the States of the Union is the God of the Bible.

If that’s so, then the choice between the States of the Union and the territories is an act of spiritual warfare.  I can’t prove it, but it’s definitely arguable that, by our choice of venue (the States of the Union or the territory) we are each choosing this day to serve God or mammon.

If this spiritual interpretation is valid, it’s even more evidence that the system must allow us to choose between living within the States of the Union and the territories.

Why?

Because if the god of the territories is really Satan, he is not competing to take our homes, our land or our freedoms—he’s competing for our souls.

Satan can’t take my soul.  He can’t take yours.  Not by force.

But he can accept my soul if I will give it to him.

For Satan to acquire my soul, he must persuade me to choose Satan and thereby reject the God of the Bible.

Why would anyone choose Satan?  Maybe to get a credit card.  Maybe to discharge, rather than pay, our debts.  Maybe for limited liability in this life.  Satan is always tempting us with the conveniences of this life.  Serve Satan and he may give you wealth and power in this life that are sufficient to have everything you want (you can shop ‘til you drop and seduce any man, woman or child) and to vanquish your enemies with a thought or a spell.  With Satan, you won’t have to earn your way in this life.  Instead, he will let you “have it all”.

Satan’s temptations are so convenient that they are almost irresistible.

But you must voluntarily choose to succumb to those temptations before Satan can claim your soul.  Satan cannot put a gun to your head and force you to choose him.  To gain your soul, Satan must tempt and persuade you to voluntarily choose him and thereby reject God.

So—if it’s true that the conveniences of the territory ultimately implicate Satan—if that’s true—and the ultimate object of the territories is to cause us to lose our souls—if that’s true—then there must be choice.  We can’t be held liable for that which we don’t choose.

•  Either way—regardless of whether the consequences of the territorial choice implicate treason or Satan (and blasphemy)—there would seem to be, of necessity, an opportunity to choose between the venues of the States of the Union and the alternative territories.

How to properly implement that choice remains to be seen.  But if there is choice, then there is a way out from under governmental oppression.

Where there’s a choice, there’s hope.

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

63 responses to “The States of the Union vs. the Territory

  1. Harry

    June 14, 2011 at 8:58 AM

    I have for some time now been convinced that every thing the government does in relation to individual men living within the limits of it territory is based on the presumption that the man is a person/citizen who has consented to be governed by the government’s corporate bylaws/statutes, and, therefore the courts have held:

    “The citizen cannot complain because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a [non-republican] form of government. … he owes ALLEGIANCE to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres MUST PAY THE PENALTIES. – U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) – A post 14th amendment Supreme Court case.

    “Allegiance” in the United States “is [now] a political obligation” depending not on the OWNERSHIP OF LAND, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government” and it “binds the CITIZEN to the observance of all laws of his own SOVEREIGN. The sovereign people have become subjects/servants and the government public servants have become sovereigns.

    We must also keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court held that:

    “Every person is purported to KNOW the law and UNLESS YOU become a belligerent claimant of YOUR rights YOU are CONSIDERED [i.e. presumed] to have acquiesced [i.e. waived your right to belligerently claim your Creator-given rights and thereby “assented” to be governed by the corporate bylaws] and ignorance [of the fact that one must belligerently claim their rights in order to lawfully exercise and enjoy them] is no excuse.”

    Of course one must KNOW their rights before they can claim them and knowing one’s actual or presumed status and estate and where they are standing is also important.

    The Clearfield Doctrine tells us that:

    “Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen … where private corporate commercial paper and securities is concerned. … For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded [presumed] as entities entirely SEPARATE from government.”

    Would not Federal Reserve Notes be private corporate commercial paper ? Would not checks denominated in dollars of fed notes be securities?

    Every government department and agency is listed on MANTA to be “private companies” that appears to be engaged in commerce for profit. What is a private company? Who are the shareholders? Where are these private companies listed?

    Would this mean then that by using fed notes instead of gold or silver coin that the government could not compel an individual to some specific performance based upon its corporate statutes/bylaws, unless it was the holder-in-due-course of a contract or other commercial agreement which contract it must enter into evidence before trying to move the court to enforce its private corporate bylaws/statutes/rules and regulations.

    I think that the courts simply presume that the individual has assented to be contracted to be governed by these private corporate company bylaw based on the individual’s conduct that evidences that he has assented to be so governed by his not speaking up and belligerently claiming his vested civil rights which civil rights have nothing to do with the organization and administration of the government.

    Another thing to consider in this state v. territory issue is that there are three distinct types of “civil rights” one of which, as I just said, are not CONNECTED to the organization or administration of government and these civil right include the rights of property, marriage, protection by the laws [not by the government], freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc. Winnett v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, 99 N.W. 681 in Black’s 4th in definition of RIGHT at definition of Civil rights.

    We are told to come out of these worldly governments and be separate and it would be inconsistent with the very character of our Creator to come out if He has not prepared a way for us to lawfully do so. Properly disputing these false presumptions and belligerently claiming our Creator given natural rights appear to me to be the only lawful way out.

    I once read a judge being quoted to have said to friend, “You may come in and out of my jurisdiction many times in the course of 24 hours. When you are without you are at liberty to do anything lawful.” Of course this is only hearsay.

    In any case, I think you are on to something here and I am 100% sure if you are correct that when your theory is established to be the truth of the matter, this TRUTH will MAKE US FREE. Of course if our choice is not to live under the “law of liberty” given us by our Heavenly Sovereign, then we will be required to live under all the corporate bylaws of our earthly sovereign. There are gods many. The choice is ours but choose we must. As it has been written from the beginning: Choose you this day whom you will serve.

     
    • Adask

      June 14, 2011 at 1:17 PM

      I’ve been trying to understand this “system” for 28 years. For most of the first 18 years, I probably didn’t learn much of anything other than which “rabbit trails” led nowhere. But for the past decade, my level of knowledge has grown to a point where much of it (no matter how hard to believe) might be roughly correct.

      Then, the really hard work began: trying to learn not only to understand how the system works, but learn how to communicate that knowledge to others.

      I still don’t know for a fact that my “knowledge” is correct, but–thanks to comments like that of “Harry” (above)–I do know that I’m learning how to communicate my “knowledge” and others are beginning to “get the idea”. The people who really “get the idea” have been few and far between but are increasingly frequent. Perhaps we’ve found an “idea whose time has come.”

      I can’t tell you how pleased I am to receive comments on this blog (or sometimes private email) from men and women who, like “Harry,” “get it”.

      This is not to suggest that I believe Harry’s understanding is entirely or even substantially based on my “teachings”. Harry’s extensive references to case cites makes clear that Harry has been independently studying this kind of material for years and has learned an enormous amount from other teachers and, even more, from his own studies.

      It’s not important that Harry learn anything from me. This blog is not really motivated by my ego or vanity. But it is important that Harry (and others) learn the truth from any source they can find. And it’s important that I, also, learn the truth from any source I can find.

      Harry’s comments are not simply evidence that he has learned something from me, but rather evidence that he has learned on his own–and has independently come to conclusions very much like my own. Harry is thus, implicitly confirming that my notions may be correct. Harry is thus TEACHING ME that I might be right.

      Harry’s not the first or the last to teach me. But I’m always delighted whenever someone sends comments or email that teach me and help me to better understand and have more confidence in my own “peculiar” ideas.

      Thanks to everyone who writes to me and tries to help me understand.

      Thanks.

       
    • Don

      September 21, 2012 at 6:10 PM

      Thanks Harry,
      You are a humble & wise man. I like the way you use the word/term “individual.” It is a correct & proper use of how it should be used. What follows, is to me, an improper or for certain,the statutory defined use. I forget what newspaper I cut & pasted it from

      Kennedy was one of two individuals sent to the Governor for consideration by a judicial nominating commission.

       
  2. Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)

    June 14, 2011 at 9:11 AM

    When Dubbya and the Dick refused to give testimony under oath to the 911 Commission how could their word be believed; how could that testimony have any weight?

    How could the two men, apparently and by law, most responsible for the catastrophe of that day be allowed to elide having to make themselves lawfully accountable for telling the truth about it by NOT having to, as is mandated by law, swear on a bible that their testimony would be truthful?

    By not being under oath these egregious suspects were allowed to somehow lend the weight of their high office to their testimony while not having to abide by any Divinely-based oath, thus removing the suscepitbility of perjuring themselves.

    They opted for the psychological opprobrium tacitly and universally granted their high office rather than the imprimatur of Divine Authority that the normative swearing in on a bible compels.

    This legalistic lacuna afforded them was monumental.

    For the rest of we animals…but men in the image of God for the sole and momentary act of oath-taking:

    Whoever testifies as witness in a courtroom is compelled to take an oath of truth-telling, with their right hand on a bible, under penalty of committing perjury if they lie…i.e., false swearing.

    That means that under your “general theory” a momentary but critical suspension of the rules of territorial hegemony NOT under God is taking place and for the purpose of lending universially recognized Divine Authority to any witness’ word.

    The “treasonous, perhaps Satanic de facto state” is therefore having their cake and eating it.

    They’re using God, on the one hand, to lend credibility in the minds of men while on the other they are running all operations under the aegis of some OTHER authority.

    I mean that this paradox of accepting that a man is the image of God only for swearing in and then proceeding to bind him under “laws” that treat him like an animal for everything else can be somehow used to take the federal government to task.

    Indeed, mammon and God cannot, under any circumstances, be coequally served…but the corporatist government seems to be getting away with doing just that.

     
  3. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 14, 2011 at 2:53 PM

    All the “Courts of Record” in this country today, are Statutory Courts of Record. This I know!!

    The Constitution of/for The united States and the first 10 Articles in addition thereto a/k/a amendments, I believe, are purviewed via the 13th & on amendments power clauses called appropriate legislation.

    I would like to know where or who to “go to,etc.” the way things are now,for a :redress of grievance,knowing that Statutory Courts of Record will deem your TRUTH frivolous,specious,spurious,and without foundation & merit.

     
  4. palani

    June 14, 2011 at 5:31 PM

    From the Law of the Forest

    For the better understanding wherof, it is to be noted, a forrest is a certen Territorie of ground, this word (Territorie) is most properly a circuit of ground, containing a libertie within it selfe, wherein divers men have land within it, and yet the same Territorie it selfe doth lie open and not inclosed, although perhaps there may be divers inclo-sures

    -sures within it, for this worde Territorie, as I take it, is derived from the Latin word Territorium, which is a Territorie, or all the fields and contrey lying within the bounds and libertie of a Citie, which doth extend farre without the walles of the Citie round about, by certain meetes and boundaries, without any other inclosure belonging to the same: And, because a Forrest doth likewise lie open and not inclosed, having onely but meetes and boundaries to know the Ring and uttermost Skirtes of the forrest by, therefore this word Territorie, is used as a meete word for that purpose.

     
  5. Jerry Lee

    June 14, 2011 at 7:31 PM

    DOES LEGAL TENDER AND VENUE MAKE THE LAW?

    1. The Federal Constitution Article I, Sections 5 &10 duties of Congress.
    2. The Wizard of Oz allegory find it read it fact vs fiction.
    3. Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982 look it up
    4. First National Bank of Montgomery VS. Jerome Daly, Credit River Township, Federal Reserve is declared unconstitutional.
    5. Manta.com/Dun-Bradstreet.Com a Corporate search engine;
    6. Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913,Plunder of America and her People is now legal.
    7. The United States Government does not pay the Secretary of the Treasury.
    8. Congress acting as agents of foreign principals
    9. Title 26-27 United States Code are not positive law
    10. The Trading With the Enemy Act, Title 12, §95(a) and §95(b) and Militarty/Admiralty Jurisdiction.

    (1) As always content listed herein is just my own belief and any corrections or addition will be most appreciated.

    To me the word ‘Feds’ has a dual meaning and as practice today both are destructive to your Life, Liberty and Property. Those entities are Corporations and their DBA’s are as follows: The Federal Reserve-IMF/UN and the United States Inc. Facts are facts and Rules, Regulations Codes and Public Policy which to me means Duties, Obligations, Limitations and Privileges since it is ‘of’ ‘Them’ it belongs to ‘Them’. ‘Their Words’ become ‘Swords’ and may rob one of Life, Liberty and Property there is no silver bullet even if one is 110% within the Law.

    I will start out with the Supreme Law of the Land, the Federal Constitution for the states United. Often over looked is Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 which gives ‘Power’ to Congress to coin the money of the Realm and no other entity, of course Article I, Section 10 mandates and bars what is and isn’t lawful tender for the states United. Lawful and Legal are true opposites.

    Although no case has every made it to the supreme Court on the constitutionally of the Federal Reserve Act it would appear to me that the following case would imply that indeed the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional.
    The dog and pony show that the court cannot hear a Political question and Congress won’t make a Judicial decision is a way to keep the Legal Plunder alive and well. But one thing the Court may hear are acts of Moral Turpitude better known as Fraud against Society this as far as I know has not been adjudicated by a Court of Proper venue. It would seem that the supreme Court would have original jurisdiction on this matter. The following case, which I believe, could bring Law back to the People. Using stare decisis is for the court to follow it’s own policy and not to disturb a settled point.

    Schechter Poultry v. U.S., 29 U.S. 495, 55 U.S. 837.842 (1935) – ruled that, “Congress may not abdicate or transfer to others its legitimate functions.” Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Congress shall have power… to coin money, regulate the value thereof… ” By passing the Federal Reserve Act, Congress abdicated and transferred to the Federal Reserve bankers its constitutionally legitimate function of issuing and controlling money. Thus I do believe the Federal Reserve Act is therefore unconstitutional even though the ‘Supremes’ have all shirked their duty to resolve the issues.

    The federal united States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united States of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, gold and silver coin as payments for debt. But like Al has stated Congress is not legislating for “The United States of America” but The United States Inc.
    By the Act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. chap. 180), a permanent form of government for the District was established. It provided …and that the commissioners therein provided for should be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation.”
    The District of Columbia v. Henry E. Woodbury, 136 U.S. 472 (1890).

    U S CODE, Title 28,Section 3002 Definitions,
    (15) “United States” means—
    (A) a Federal corporation;

    (2) Next is the allegory of The Wizard of Oz, Like I said look it up and read it but I will add a little more to the ‘story’ We know the Twister takes the house off the land and into the air above and Dorothy tells Toto “Where not in Kansas anymore” and the story addresses Kansas as KS which is a Federal zone /State but the nay Sayers like to say the two letter zip was not around at the time the story was written, true but Let me show you something…

    Kansas Statutes Article 31: Preliminary 21-3110 Definitions
    (23) “State” or “this state” means the state of Kansas and all land and water in respect to which the state of Kansas has either exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction, AND THE AIR SPACE ABOVE SUCH LAND AND WATER. “Other state” means any state or territory of the United States, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. They were saying, I can’t stop this is too fun..

    Oregon laws 1973, chapter 836, page 2708, Section 13 (O.R.S. 131.205)
    “this state” “means the land and water AND the air space>> ABOVE <Part I>Chapter II> Section>219: Officers and employees acting as agents of foreign principals

    (a) Whoever, being a public official, is or acts as an agent of a foreign principal required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 or a lobbyist required to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in connection with the representation of a foreign entity, as defined in section 3(6) of that Act shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
    .
    (c) For the purpose of this section “public official” means ****MEMBER OF CONGRESS****, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after he has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency, or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government.

    Now you know why we get no representation ‘They’ ***WORK AS AGENTS*** OF FOREIGN PRINCIPALS ie International Bankers.

    (9) These US Code Title [26 & 27] are only applicale to Government employees State /Federal etc and US citizen/person-subject and those state national who volunteer in to the system [sometime at at gun point or you contracted in blank]. ‘They’ only regulate their own kind in an administrative agency, Unites States or residents thereof.

    (10) Yes you are presumed to be an enemy of the United States Inc as declared by FDR in March of 1933, [only us citizens, person/subject]. Trading With The Enemy Act is codified in US Code Title 12, Section 95 (a) (b).
    The catch is you are presumed to be a Fourteenth Amendment US citizen-person/subject; chattel property of the US Inc., International Bankers. You died as soon as your Mother signs you [‘Birth Certificate’] over to the corporate United States Inc. You were just born again into the United States Inc. You became a corporate/trust, civilly dead with no Unalienable Rights…chattel property. As today the ‘Courts’ operate in Admiralty [Military] Jurisdiction, your presumed Federal citizenship has carried right on through to ‘its’ jurisdiction over ‘Their’ ‘property’ Art IV, Section 3, Clause 2. All State and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are Admiralty Jurisdiction since the de jure states have been suspended. Are ‘They’ enforcing Military Rule against a declared enemy…You. Why the Military flag in courts?

    BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) 258 U.S. 298

    Even their United States District Court is a “Private Court” that operates by Title 28, F.R.Civ.P. it is an admiralty rule book; U.S. v. Kirkpatrick: 186 F.2d 3931, which govern all disputes over maritime contracts in rem, or quasi in rem, and “actions” or “transactions” that impose a debt, duty, obligation or “liability,” e.g., an unliquidated claim and an accrued right of action concerning property and ultimately the res. These courts have no jurisdiction within the several states they are a territorial court.
    Actions are against a Thing [res] as in res-ident or in rem or quasi rem…against the vessel/property.
    All United States citizens are considered vessels and being at war with the United States they are therefore enemies.
    Admiralty law came on land in 1845 with the Act of 1845 by Congress. See: Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.
    The real Pirates of the Caribbean [IRS] is HQ in San Juan, Puerto Rico and has a service contract with Congress better known as Letter of Marque and Reprisal against you to plunder and capture prizes and booty of war (vessels/property) pursuant to Article 1, section 8, paragraph 11 of the United States Constitution and Public International Law.

    Federal Reserve Notes are Admiralty Limited Liability/lien debt instruments.
    The owners of the “product” have placed a lien on each and every FRN for their use so this is why you own nothing. That lien passes to every one and everything that use these instruments for purchases and discharge. This is confirmed as follows:

    Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, which states: “The ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of the government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state.” Remember you are presumed property of the United States.

    As for that vessel thing…US Code Title 16.Chapter 44A> Section 2432
    (8) Person
    The term “person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, trust, association, and any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    (10) Vessel of the United States
    The term “vessel of the United States” means—
    (A) a vessel documented under chapter 121 of title 46 or a vessel numbered as provided in
    chapter 123 of that title;
    (B) a vessel owned in whole or in part by—
    (i) the United States or a territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States;
    (ii) a State or political subdivision thereof;
    (iii) a citizen or national of the United States; or
    (iv) a corporation created under the laws of the United States or any State, the District of
    Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States; unless the vessel has been granted the nationality of a foreign nation in accordance with

    Something to thing about…The Bible in Peter 3:7: uses the word vessel “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

    The big difference of vessels as used in the Bible and the US Code is as follows:
    God’s law is for mankind, male and female Genesis 1:26-28, these vessels are made in the image of God.
    The US Codes are for fictions, which are created by man to serve man.
    Maxim of Law: The created cannot be greater then the Creator.

    As a Fourteenth Amendment US citizen-person/subject [property] you cannot question the debt section 4 of that Amendment.

    This is just barely touching the criminal activates of the United State Inc. and the Federal Reserve as ‘Their’ 100 year contract expires in Dec 2012 this is why the rush to plunder us/US people and collapse the American economy.
    The Last Official Act Of Any Government Is To Loot The Nation And Its People.

    Pieces of eight or pieces to the puzzle.

    Treasons maybe not; has our ignorance placed us in voluntary servitude?
    We have the law, question begs, do we have the ‘Sprit’?

     
    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 15, 2011 at 6:27 PM

      To Jerry Lee: It depends on why the “Federal Reserve” is being sued as to whether or not IT is a private corporation or a ???. Here in pertinent part is what A (one) court said.
      Excerpt from: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Improvement Dist. No. 1, City of Little Rock, Arkansas 657 F.2d 183
      In conclusion, we hold that the federal reserve bank is a federal instrumentality and therefore enjoys an immunity from *187 (Cite as: 657 F.2d 183, *187)state and local taxation unless waived by Congress.[FN4]

       
  6. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 15, 2011 at 12:38 PM

    If, let’s say today, we suddenly come to know the who,what, when,where & why we are in the mess we’re in, THEN what is next? What do we do to change it? There are no courts going to agree with us. When you are arrested at the courthouse & charged with criminal trespass with the probable cause being: “Probably cause we don’t want you here” & you are put in a torture chamber for over a month to, as I was told, to get your mind right, & finally released, with only your underclothes on & as soon as your feet touch the ground (courthouse ground) you are arrested again “charged with indecent exposure” things like this do affect your mind in a very bad way..Then, later you find out that EVERYONE involved in this arrest was promoted in rank,well, what else can I say? I hope I’m getting something across here. Then, so many people are so shallow by asking: “What did you do at the courthouse to get arrested & charged with criminal trespass? My answer of: “I went to the courthouse to file some paperwork re: a probate matter that a judge & attorney started per my deceased wife. Their response? “I understand that,but what did you do at the courthouse to cause the arrest for criminal trespass?” I say again,” I went to the courthouse……” Sometimes you just can’t win.

     
  7. Jerry Lee

    June 15, 2011 at 1:39 PM

    It seems my post [DOES LEGAL TENDER AND VENUE MAKE THE LAW?] was split and part of it was not transfer over so I will repost.

    DOES LEGAL TENDER AND VENUE MAKE THE LAW?

    1. The Federal Constitution Article I, Sections 5 &10 duties of Congress.
    2. The Wizard of Oz allegory find it read it fact vs fiction.
    3. Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982 look it up
    4. First National Bank of Montgomery VS. Jerome Daly, Credit River Township, Federal Reserve is declared unconstitutional.
    5. Manta.com/Dun-Bradstreet.Com a Corporate search engine;
    6. Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913,Plunder of America and her People is now legal.
    7. The United States Government does not pay the Secretary of the Treasury.
    8. Congress acting as agents of foreign principals
    9. Title 26-27 United States Code are not positive law
    10. The Trading With the Enemy Act, Title 12, §95(a) and §95(b) and Militarty/Admiralty Jurisdiction.

    (1) As always content listed herein is just my own belief and any corrections or addition will be most appreciated.

    To me the word ‘Feds’ has a dual meaning and as practice today both are destructive to your Life, Liberty and Property. Those entities are Corporations and their DBA’s are as follows: The Federal Reserve-IMF/UN and the United States Inc. Facts are facts and Rules, Regulations Codes and Public Policy which to me means Duties, Obligations, Limitations and Privileges since it is ‘of’ ‘Them’ it belongs to ‘Them’. ‘Their Words’ become ‘Swords’ and may rob one of Life, Liberty and Property there is no silver bullet even if one is 110% within the Law.

    I will start out with the Supreme Law of the Land, the Federal Constitution for the states United. Often over looked is Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 which gives ‘Power’ to Congress to coin the money of the Realm and no other entity, of course Article I, Section 10 mandates and bars what is and isn’t lawful tender for the states United. Lawful and Legal are true opposites.

    Although no case has every made it to the supreme Court on the constitutionally of the Federal Reserve Act it would appear to me that the following case would imply that indeed the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional.
    The dog and pony show that the court cannot hear a Political question and Congress won’t make a Judicial decision is a way to keep the Legal Plunder alive and well. But one thing the Court may hear are acts of Moral Turpitude better known as Fraud against Society this as far as I know has not been adjudicated by a Court of Proper venue. It would seem that the supreme Court would have original jurisdiction on this matter. The following case, which I believe, could bring Law back to the People. Using stare decisis is for the court to follow it’s own policy and not to disturb a settled point.

    Schechter Poultry v. U.S., 29 U.S. 495, 55 U.S. 837.842 (1935) – ruled that, “Congress may not abdicate or transfer to others its legitimate functions.” Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Congress shall have power… to coin money, regulate the value thereof… ” By passing the Federal Reserve Act, Congress abdicated and transferred to the Federal Reserve bankers its constitutionally legitimate function of issuing and controlling money. Thus I do believe the Federal Reserve Act is therefore unconstitutional even though the ‘Supremes’ have all shirked their duty to resolve the issues.

    The federal united States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united States of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, gold and silver coin as payments for debt. But like Al has stated Congress is not legislating for “The United States of America” but The United States Inc.
    By the Act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. chap. 180), a permanent form of government for the District was established. It provided …and that the commissioners therein provided for should be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation.”
    The District of Columbia v. Henry E. Woodbury, 136 U.S. 472 (1890).

    U S CODE, Title 28,Section 3002 Definitions,
    (15) “United States” means—
    (A) a Federal corporation;

    (2) Next is the allegory of The Wizard of Oz, Like I said look it up and read it but I will add a little more to the ‘story’ We know the Twister takes the house off the land and into the air above and Dorothy tells Toto “Where not in Kansas anymore” and the story addresses Kansas as KS which is a Federal zone /State but the nay Sayers like to say the two letter zip was not around at the time the story was written, true but Let me show you something…

    Kansas Statutes Article 31: Preliminary 21-3110 Definitions
    (23) “State” or “this state” means the state of Kansas and all land and water in respect to which the state of Kansas has either exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction, AND THE AIR SPACE ABOVE SUCH LAND AND WATER. “Other state” means any state or territory of the United States, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. They were saying, I can’t stop this is too fun..

    Oregon laws 1973, chapter 836, page 2708, Section 13 (O.R.S. 131.205)
    “this state” “means the land and water AND the air space>> ABOVE <Part I>Chapter II> Section>219: Officers and employees acting as agents of foreign principals

    (a) Whoever, being a public official, is or acts as an agent of a foreign principal required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 or a lobbyist required to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in connection with the representation of a foreign entity, as defined in section 3(6) of that Act shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
    .
    (c) For the purpose of this section “public official” means ****MEMBER OF CONGRESS****, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after he has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency, or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government.

    Now you know why we get no representation ‘They’ ***WORK AS AGENTS*** OF FOREIGN PRINCIPALS ie International Bankers.

    (9) These US Code Title [26 & 27] are only applicale to Government employees State /Federal etc and US citizen/person-subject and those state national who volunteer in to the system [sometime at at gun point or you contracted in blank]. ‘They’ only regulate their own kind in an administrative agency, Unites States or residents thereof.

    (10) Yes you are presumed to be an enemy of the United States Inc as declared by FDR in March of 1933, [only us citizens, person/subject]. Trading With The Enemy Act is codified in US Code Title 12, Section 95 (a) (b).
    The catch is you are presumed to be a Fourteenth Amendment US citizen-person/subject; chattel property of the US Inc., International Bankers. You died as soon as your Mother signs you [‘Birth Certificate’] over to the corporate United States Inc. You were just born again into the United States Inc. You became a corporate/trust, civilly dead with no Unalienable Rights…chattel property. As today the ‘Courts’ operate in Admiralty [Military] Jurisdiction, your presumed Federal citizenship has carried right on through to ‘its’ jurisdiction over ‘Their’ ‘property’ Art IV, Section 3, Clause 2. All State and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are Admiralty Jurisdiction since the de jure states have been suspended. Are ‘They’ enforcing Military Rule against a declared enemy…You. Why the Military flag in courts?

    BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) 258 U.S. 298

    Even their United States District Court is a “Private Court” that operates by Title 28, F.R.Civ.P. it is an admiralty rule book; U.S. v. Kirkpatrick: 186 F.2d 3931, which govern all disputes over maritime contracts in rem, or quasi in rem, and “actions” or “transactions” that impose a debt, duty, obligation or “liability,” e.g., an unliquidated claim and an accrued right of action concerning property and ultimately the res. These courts have no jurisdiction within the several states they are a territorial court.
    Actions are against a Thing [res] as in res-ident or in rem or quasi rem…against the vessel/property.
    All United States citizens are considered vessels and being at war with the United States they are therefore enemies.
    Admiralty law came on land in 1845 with the Act of 1845 by Congress. See: Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.
    The real Pirates of the Caribbean [IRS] is HQ in San Juan, Puerto Rico and has a service contract with Congress better known as Letter of Marque and Reprisal against you to plunder and capture prizes and booty of war (vessels/property) pursuant to Article 1, section 8, paragraph 11 of the United States Constitution and Public International Law.

    Federal Reserve Notes are Admiralty Limited Liability/lien debt instruments.
    The owners of the “product” have placed a lien on each and every FRN for their use so this is why you own nothing. That lien passes to every one and everything that use these instruments for purchases and discharge. This is confirmed as follows:

    Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, which states: “The ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of the government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state.” Remember you are presumed property of the United States.

    As for that vessel thing…US Code Title 16.Chapter 44A> Section 2432
    (8) Person
    The term “person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, trust, association, and any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    (10) Vessel of the United States
    The term “vessel of the United States” means—
    (A) a vessel documented under chapter 121 of title 46 or a vessel numbered as provided in
    chapter 123 of that title;
    (B) a vessel owned in whole or in part by—
    (i) the United States or a territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States;
    (ii) a State or political subdivision thereof;
    (iii) a citizen or national of the United States; or
    (iv) a corporation created under the laws of the United States or any State, the District of
    Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States; unless the vessel has been granted the nationality of a foreign nation in accordance with

    Something to thing about…The Bible in Peter 3:7: uses the word vessel “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

    The big difference of vessels as used in the Bible and the US Code is as follows:
    God’s law is for mankind, male and female Genesis 1:26-28, these vessels are made in the image of God.
    The US Codes are for fictions, which are created by man to serve man.
    Maxim of Law: The created cannot be greater then the Creator.

    As a Fourteenth Amendment US citizen-person/subject [property] you cannot question the debt section 4 of that Amendment.

    This is just barely touching the criminal activates of the United State Inc. and the Federal Reserve as ‘Their’ 100 year contract expires in Dec 2012 this is why the rush to plunder us/US people and collapse the American economy.
    The Last Official Act Of Any Government Is To Loot The Nation And Its People.

    Pieces of eight or pieces to the puzzle.

    Treasons maybe not; has our ignorance placed us in voluntary servitude?
    We have the law, question begs, do we have the ‘Sprit’?

     
  8. Jerry Lee

    June 15, 2011 at 1:55 PM

    Wow, Al please don’t kick me off I had a gut feeling the post was too long. Sorry folks.

    Part II DOES LEGAL TENDER AND VENUE MAKE THE LAW?

    Texas Penal code: Sec. 1.04. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.
    (d) This state includes the land and water AND the air space ABOVE the land and water over which this state has power to define offenses.

    Arizona Basic Legal Definition 13-108: Territorial applicability:
    C. This state includes the land and water and the air space Above the land and the water.

    Montana Part I: Definitions and State of Mind 45-2-101: General definitions (70) “State” or “ this state” means the state of Montana, all the land and water in respect to which the state of Montana has either exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction, and the air space Above the land and water.

    California Revenue Code:
    11205. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

    Of course I can say this as fact that “our” present Command in Chief gives more credence to Federal States in his campaign for President. Saying he had visited 57 “States” with one to go well he missed one for there are 59 Federal States, here they are… Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, The Northern Mariana’s, America Soma, Midway Islands, Wake Island, The Federal States of Micronesia and the Fifty Federal STATES OF XXXXX. So these are the 59 States of The United States Inc.

    For what it is worth all of ‘Our” so called Presidents since Lincoln should have been wearing Military uniforms to be in their proper forum.

    Do DO Do Do welcome to the Twilight Zone…pretty neat huh? This is where the IRS also has their enforcement authority.

    Others ‘STATES’ may use a different formula but it means they have no jurisdiction within the state republic or on the land.

    Today the Supreme law of the land is the Uniform Commercial Code or copyright private municipal law of Washington DC, which has the force and effect of law but is not law.
    This quote from the American Bar Association/State Justice Institute publication “CITIZENS JUSTICE 2000″…. page 44, Chapter V. “Common Law Courts” “The ‘common law’ courts are not a part of the judicial system established by local, state and federal law. The term ‘common law courts’ refer to individuals who appoint themselves as judges and juries of claims against government officials or of disputes that others have filed in a legitimate court system. They do not recognize local, state or federal courts and tribunals.”
    I agree with this this quote as it foretells one that courts of today are not a Judicail common law and may be even illegitimate?
    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held in 1969:
    If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason, which appeals to their logic and passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide that decision.
    Then in 1972 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals noted: “The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge.” [In olden days this was called jury tampering].
    In a 1993 law journal article, federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein wrote: “When juries refuse to
    convict on the basis of what they think are unjust laws, they are performing their duties as jurors.”
    This would be right in step with the first Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay in 1794 and latter 1817, Chief Justice John Marshall. It is the common law right of juries to judge both law and fact but are you in a common law court? For that matter are you allow in that court?
    Could it be that a fourth branch of law exisit outside those mention in the Federal constitution?
    Now add this to the mix:
    Administrative Law is not Common Law, Equity, or Admiralty
    Arising under the holding in the adjudged case of Bowen v. Department of Social Security et al., 127 P.2d 682, 685 (1942), administrative law is a distinct branch of law, and it is not common law, equity, or admiralty and therefore can not arise under the Constitution of the United States, to wit:
    Colonel O. R. McGuire, a member of the American Bar Association’s special committee on administrative *153 law, in an article published in 26 Georgetown Law Journal, 574, 589, says: ‘* * * administrative law is a separate and distinct branch of the law. It is not common law, equity, or admiralty law * * *.’ The court has recognized the principle with respect to the industrial insurance act that controversies arising under it are controlled by “special statutory proceedings exercised in derogation of, or not according to, the course of the common law.” (Italics ours.) Nafus v. Department of Labor and Industries, 142 Wash. 48, 52, 251 P. 877, 878. [Emphasis added]
    This is also held in the adjudged decision of State ex rel Nielson et al. v. Lindstrom, 191 P.2d 1009, 1015 (1948). The UCC is legislated (Administrative Law) that codifies the rules for all commercial transactions between countries, states and individuals.

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub.L. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237, enacted June 11, 1946, Title 5 sec 500.

     
  9. Jerry Lee

    June 15, 2011 at 2:00 PM

    Part III DOES LEGAL TENDER AND VENUE MAKE THE LAW?

    (3) Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982 confirms the Federal Reserve is indeed a Private corporation and not a part of the ‘Government’.
    The Federal Reserve is not listed under the Federal Government. They are in the white pages, along with Federal Express, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and any other business. Find out for yourself if all this is true. It reads in part: “Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS NOT a federal instrumentality’s… but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations – federal reserve banks are listed neither as ‘wholly-owned’ government corporations [under 31 USC Section 846] nor as ‘mixed ownership’ corporations [under 31 USC Section 856] . . . 28 USC Sections 1346(b), 2671.” Even the Internal Revenue Service was once listed as a private entity an not listed among the Federal Government.

    “The Federal Reserve is not an agency of the US Government. It is a private banking monopoly…. The policies of the monarch are always those of his creditors.”1– Congressman John R. Rarick. Was he saying law ie Public Policy is the law of the International Banker as ‘money’ makes the law?

    (4) Jerome Daly, Credit River Township case declares the Federal Reserve System is ‘Unconstitutional’…
    However, the bank appealed the next day, and the decision was ultimately nullified on the grounds that a Justice of the Peace did not have the power to make such a ruling. Because the decision was nullified, the case has no value as precedent. A U.S. District Court decision in Utah in 2008 mentioned half a dozen such citations, noting that similar arguments have “repeatedly been dismissed by the courts as baseless” and that “courts around the country have repeatedly dismissed efforts to void loans based on similar assertions.”
    “Justices of the peace are elected for two-year terms in townships and in cities and villages which do not have municipal courts. Justices of the peace have jurisdiction over actions arising within a county when the amount involved does not exceed $100 for civil cases, and when the punishment or fine does not exceed $100 or three months’ imprisonment in criminal cases.” Because the decisions of these justice of the peace courts are not precedential (that is, other courts do not have to follow them), they are not published. Furthermore, the Minnesota cases cited by Plaintiff are not only unreported, but they have been vacated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in reported decisions. See In re Daly, 284 Minn. 567, 171 N.W.2d 818; Zurn v. Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 600, 284 Minn. 573 (Minn. 1969); Daly v. Savage State Bank, 171 N.W.2d 218, 218, 285 Minn. 503, 503 (Minn. 1969). Plaintiff is hereby admonished she must not cite any decision under which Justice Martin Mahoney purported to question the validity of federal currency or the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act, nor may she cite any opinion or decision as authoritative which no longer has authoritative status.
    In the same case MARTIN V. MAHONEY, on December 7, 1969, evidence was introduced on January 22, 1969, and the Court finds that as of March 18, 1968 all Gold and Silver backing was removed from Federal Reserve Notes.
    Say what? Not to question the validity of federal currency or the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act was this court giving it’s blessing to Territorial currency? Should ‘Plaintiff’ have made pertinent evidence in the Credit River Township case ‘hers’ since the Daly case had been dismiss because of wrong venue and vacated to render the case null. This does not mean some evidence ‘facts’ were not applicable. I do believe Plaintiff sets venue not for sure but ignorance put her in the wrong venue by consenting to the court’s jurisdiction unbeknownst to her I do believe.
    My take is you cannot take a Private issue into ‘Public Policy” court. This is why you cannot be heard, real vs fiction. Who are you, where are you? Answer these questions you will know what court you need to be present.

    (5) Manta and Dun-Bradstreet will open your eyes that what you passes for government is no more then ‘Private” corporation[s]. All Federal States, United States Supreme Court, the Whitehouse, Office Of The President, United Nation United States Army, Untied States Air Force and even the IRS.

    (6) “This Act [Federal Reserve] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized…the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.” Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh.
    On May 23, 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee, and has yet to be acted upon. (See: the Congressional Record, May 23, 1933, pp. 4055-4058.)

    (7) The Secretary of the Treasury has to expatriates or denounce their United States citizenship for he has serving as a Direct Agent of a Foreign Principal for the Fund [IMF/UN] who pays him not the US Government, so I guest this would mean he is not looking out for Our best interest. Office of the Secretary of Treasury is the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States.” Let me expound on this those Congress Critters, State Governors etc who use Federal Reserve Note to conducts business, foreign agents.

    (8) It is worthy to note that all members of Congress are required to file a “Foreign Agents Registration
    Statement” pursuant to 22 U.S.C.A. 611c(1)(iv), 612 & 613), when representing the interests of a Foreign Principal or Power. (See: Rabinowitz vs. Kennedy, 376 U.S. 605, 11 L. Ed. 2d 940, 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951)

    You have no representation in this criminal de facto-corporation masquerading as government.

    US Code Title 18>Part I>Chapter II> Section>219: Officers and employees acting as agents of foreign principals

    (a) Whoever, being a public official, is or acts as an agent of a foreign principal required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 or a lobbyist required to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in connection

     
  10. Dan

    June 17, 2011 at 2:04 AM

    I think you’re spot on, Al. (Quack quack!)

    It seems to me that one must make a choice to become a “US CITIZEN” as many governmental forms request that one must check this option “under penalty of perjury.” [Thus taking an oath?]

    Inasmuch as one has freely chosen to be a US CITIZEN, one is assumed to have done so within the confines of one’s own knowledge. Who then is responsible for informing a “sovereign” of the sovereign’s knowledge before said sovereign agrees in writing to NOT be sovereign anymore? It can only be the sovereign as the sovereign is…well…sovereign.

    This brings to mind one of my peeves with the Declaration of Independence in that I question whether the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is an accurate one as the vast majority of Americans have no understanding of what rights are in general or what unalienable rights are in particular. I believe that they are NOT “self-evident” but, rather, that they are “rationally demonstrable.” Otherwise any small child or toddler would have no difficulty grasping the concept of property…as in “That is NOT your candy.”

    Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are NOT rational. They only have a vague nebular blur in their minds of what a right is so they have no way of exercising the same except approximately; as in a wink wink, elbow, nod manner. The term “sovereign” implies, to me anyway, that one has a clearly defined understanding of rights.

     
    • Adask

      June 17, 2011 at 4:16 AM

      “Self-evident” is hugely preferable to “rationally demonstrable”. That which is “rationally demonstrable” must be “demonstrated”–i.e., PROVED with admissible evidence in court.

      Those truths (premises) that are “self-evident” need not be proved. They are fundamental principles and premises on which the republican form of government is constructed. They are the unprovable axioms on which this nation was constructed.

      While it’s true that the vast majority of Americans do not understand the source or meaning of “unalienable Rights,” they can be taught to understand those “unalienable Rights” much more easily than they can be taught how to introduce evidence in a courtroom battle.

      Because our unalienable Rights are “self-evident,” they need not be proven–only understood and properly asserted. If they weren’t “self-evident,” they would be debatable, arguable and, more often than not, denied in a court of law.

      I believe that it’s exactly because our God-given, unalienable Rights are “self-evident,” that the government has worked mightily to cause the entire nation to forget those Rights. The government has no defense against that which is declared to be “self-evident”. In a real, head-to-head conflict over “unalienable Rights,” the government has no legal hope of prevailing. They could beat “rationally demonstrable”; they can’t beat “self-evident”. So the government’s only hope was to strip us of our knowledge of the “unalienable Rights”. If gov-co could make us forget (by means of defective public school education, etc.) our God-given, unalienable Rights, gov-co can beat us every time.

      But if we can remember and we can understand, gov-co is screwed.

       
      • Dan

        June 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

        I disagree.

        Rationally demonstrable allows one to use reason to determine what are facts, consider all facts and to determine what the facts’ relationships to each other, as well as to existence itself, are, to determine what a right Is, and NOT to just take somebody at their word without any proof. This process can be performed by anyone.

        Also, “rationally demonstrable” does NOT require that something “must be “demonstrated”–i.e., PROVED with admissible evidence in court” but, rather, leaves that OPTION of proving with “admissible evidence in court” what a right actually is and to validate rights open as a potential and NOT an actuality; this difference being like the difference between electric voltage and electric current.

        One is a potential and the other is an actual. An actual can NOT exist without a potential but a potential CAN exist without an actual.

        “Rationally demonstrable,” a phrase that Michael Badnarik thanked me for introducing him to, means that a win is GUARANTEED in a court, if the laws of evidence and non-contradictory identification are followed anyway, AND the premise is an AXIOMATIC concept; even BETTER than “self-evident.”

        A premise is NOT necessarily a truth NOR is a premise necessarily self-evident. A premise is only the starting point of a syllogism (a logical/non-contradictory proof) and, as such, may be either true OR false.

        For example, if someone says, “The Earth is flat so be careful not to step over the edge or you might fall off” then this statement is false because, even though the logic is true and correct and it doesn’t contradict itself, the premise is false and this makes the entire statement false no matter that the logic is correct.

        Also, just saying that something is “self-evident” does NOT make it “self-evident”. If someone says, “It is self-evident that the Earth is flat” then this not only does NOT make the Earth flat but also does NOT make the curvature, or lack thereof, of the Earth’s surface, “self evident.”

        Inasmuch as the self-evident need not be proved, I am of the opinion that Jefferson, for pragmatic reasons did write “self-evident” rather than “rationally demonstrable” exactly for this reason. I am also of the opinion that Jefferson did this in order to prevent a rational proof of rights from being considered at that time as such would very likely have split the future nation along the lines of faith versus reason rather than to unite it against the Crown. That Jefferson understood this is at least implicit in some of Jefferson’s other writings.
        It remains that an understanding of rights is NOT “self-evident” and therefore MUST be provable philosophically, yes, but NOT necessarily in a court of law, else rights remain undefined and floating abstractions unconnected to reality or the evidence of the senses and they would then have NO conceptual utility at all.

        Also, rights are NOT “axiomatic.” An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.

        Since axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of “faith” or of man’s arbitrary choice, there is a way to ascertain whether a given concept is axiomatic or not: one ascertains it by observing the fact that an axiomatic concept cannot be escaped, that it is implicit in all knowledge, that it has to be accepted and used even in the process of any attempt to deny it.

        (It is worth noting, at this point, that axiomatic concepts are the guardians of man’s mind and the foundation of reason—the keystone, touchstone and hallmark of reason—and if reason is to be destroyed, it is axiomatic concepts that have to be destroyed.)

        The axiomatic concepts that are at the base of human knowledge are:

        1. Existence. [Existence exists.]

        2. Consciousness. [I am conscious.]

        3. Identity, A is A. [A thing is what a thing is.]

        The best way to prove these is to try to DIS-prove them as these must be taken as true in order to negate them.

        1. If someone says that “Existence does NOT exist” then no one exists to make such a statement.
        2. If someone says that they are NOT conscious (or that their listener is NOT conscious) then the speaker cannot speak (and the listener cannot hear.)
        3. If someone wants to say that A is NOT A then the object that the speaker is referring to is NOT the object that the speaker is referring to. In comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges, this becomes an invalid process when apples become oranges and oranges become apples.

        When I say that rights are “rationally demonstrable,” I am saying that the syllogism which proves them is based on THESE three axiomatic concepts and NOT on someone’s ARBITRARY opinion; Jefferson’s nor anyone else’s.

        Yes. People can be taught how to prove the existence of, the validation of, and the definition of, rights without ever having to learn civil or criminal court procedures, legalese, or having to become a skilled orator. A toddler can be made to understand what rights are.

        It is EASY to disprove that our unalienable rights are NOT “self-evident” in that if our unalienable rights were self evident then they would be obvious to everyone, even new born babies and toddlers, and unalienable rights, as well as rights in general, are often unknown to young children as well as many adults.

        Since rights are NOT “self-evident” then they are, as referents in existence (i.e. abstract concepts), debatable and arguable. The fact that they are often denied in a court of law, as evidenced by the 98% conviction rate in FEDERAL COURTS, underscores the fact that most people lack the knowledge of what rights are and that rights are NOT “self-evident.” Otherwise the score would, likely, be more like 50%.

        The government DOES have a “defense against that which is declared to be “self-evident”” in simply saying that “I don’t see it so it must NOT be “self-evident;” BUT the psycho-epistemological state of Western civilization being what it was at that time, and Jefferson apparently understanding this, Jefferson chose his words wisely for effect and with success.

        No, the government can NOT “beat “rationally demonstrable,”” at least NOT in a court of law. “Rationally demonstrable” means that the syllogism proving the existence of unalienable rights and proving the validity of unalienable rights IS based on the axiomatic concepts of Existence, Consciousness, and Identity, concepts that no court in the universe could disprove.

        Summing up, I offer my apology for straying off topic. Yet in my straying off topic I touched on a disagreement that you and I have which I believe needs to be addressed. I am working on a series of papers about this, and similar topics and, when I get a ROUND tuit, I will finish them.

        As you and I obviously disagree on these points, I will send the completed papers to you via email for you to critique as I can think of no better critic than someone who disagrees with me.
        “Now, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.”

         
      • Don

        September 21, 2012 at 6:21 PM

        To:Alfred;

        Per your statement of:

        “But if we can remember and we can understand, gov-co is screwed.”
        YES YES YES & without vaseline.

         
  11. Brian

    June 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM

    Al,

    I believe the “money” issue is at the core of the problem.

    You said “How th’ hell is that possible? The Constitution is amended by the 16th Amendment and yet, that Amendment grants no new powers to Congress?! Again, how th’ hell is that possible?”

    So the answer to the Pollock decision that struck down the income tax of the 1890’s was supposedly the 16th amendment.

    The defendant in the case (Farmers Loan&Trust) “the company was authorized to invest its assets in public stocks and bonds of the United States, of individual states, or of any incorporated city or county, or in such real or personal securities as it might deem proper”

    So they were investing in GovCo sponsored securities. Not private stock or other related securities. So the 16th was designed to return GovCo sponsored securities into the realm of an excise where it inherently belonged. GovCo giveth then GovCo can tax it away.

    Keeping that background in mind. Banks are a quasi GovCo sponsored entity (see title 12). The Federal reserve system is defiantly a government sponsored entity that has a massive privileged criminally delegated from the CONgress to create “legal tender” that is supposedly redeemable in lawful money. So it is merely legal…not lawful or it would not need to be redeemable.

    Now obviously the GovCo defaulted on all of it promises by suspending gold then silver redeemabillity. So now all you can get is debased coinage or greenbacks as “lawful money”. Yes I said greenbacks as the statutory language is still there for it. See 31USC section 5115. However the treasury suspended printing greenbacks in 1971. From their website “Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued”

    So does that mean a FRN can also be treated as a USN?

    What I think is going on is that when you cash your paycheck you endorse it right? What are you endorsing? I think you may be endorsing the emission of federal reserve notes (See title 12 section 411). They are in a sense loaning you FRN’s on the securitization of your paycheck by your signature blank endorsement. THIS is the “gain or profit” by which you are voluntarily engaging. They never prove that you were an “employee” or an “employer” or a “trade or business” or made “wages” because they can’t! It is beyond there authority. BUT they can prove you received money and absent the clear nature (lawful or legal? elastic or inelastic? Redeemed?) of that money your screwed! The tender your receiving is via a government grant of privilege to the FRS (a taxable activity?). Private money…legal tender….not lawful money or public money.

    How can you defeat this? When you endorse you paychecks sign it and add a restrictive endorsement along the lines of “redeemed for lawful money pursuant title 12 section 411.” I don’t have concrete proof of this yet but everything seems to say this is the path to slaying the FRS. Search the net there are some others on this path as well. Initial reports seem promising.

    http://openjurist.org/157/us/429/pollock-v-farmers-loan-traust-co

    http://moneyfactory.gov/usnotes.html

     
  12. Dan

    June 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

    I disagree.

    Rationally demonstrable allows one to use reason to determine what are facts, consider all facts and to determine what the facts’ relationships to each other, as well as to existence itself, are, to determine what a right Is, and NOT to just take somebody at their word without any proof. This process can be performed by anyone.

    Also, “rationally demonstrable” does NOT require that something “must be “demonstrated”–i.e., PROVED with admissible evidence in court” but, rather, leaves that OPTION of proving with “admissible evidence in court” what a right actually is and to validate rights open as a potential and NOT an actuality; this difference being like the difference between electric voltage and electric current.

    One is a potential and the other is an actual. An actual can NOT exist without a potential but a potential CAN exist without an actual.

    “Rationally demonstrable,” a phrase that Michael Badnarik thanked me for introducing him to, means that a win is GUARANTEED in a court, if the laws of evidence and non-contradictory identification are followed anyway, AND the premise is an AXIOMATIC concept; even BETTER than “self-evident.”

    A premise is NOT necessarily a truth NOR is a premise necessarily self-evident. A premise is only the starting point of a syllogism (a logical/non-contradictory proof) and, as such, may be either true OR false.
    For example, if someone says, “The Earth is flat so be careful not to step over the edge or you might fall off” then this statement is false because, even though the logic is true and correct and it doesn’t contradict itself, the premise is false and this makes the entire statement false no matter that the logic is correct.

    Also, just saying that something is “self-evident” does NOT make it “self-evident”. If someone says, “It is self-evident that the Earth is flat” then this not only does NOT make the Earth flat but also does NOT make the curvature, or lack thereof, of the Earth’s surface, “self evident.”

    Inasmuch as the self-evident need not be proved, I am of the opinion that Jefferson, for pragmatic reasons did write “self-evident” rather than “rationally demonstrable” exactly for this reason. I am also of the opinion that Jefferson did this in order to prevent a rational proof of rights from being considered at that time as such would very likely have split the future nation along the lines of faith versus reason rather than to unite it against the Crown. That Jefferson understood this is at least implicit in some of Jefferson’s other writings.
    It remains that an understanding of rights is NOT “self-evident” and therefore MUST be provable philosophically, yes, but NOT necessarily in a court of law, else rights remain undefined and floating abstractions unconnected to reality or the evidence of the senses and they would then have NO conceptual utility at all.

    Also, rights are NOT “axiomatic.” An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.

    Since axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of “faith” or of man’s arbitrary choice, there is a way to ascertain whether a given concept is axiomatic or not: one ascertains it by observing the fact that an axiomatic concept cannot be escaped, that it is implicit in all knowledge, that it has to be accepted and used even in the process of any attempt to deny it.

    (It is worth noting, at this point, that axiomatic concepts are the guardians of man’s mind and the foundation of reason—the keystone, touchstone and hallmark of reason—and if reason is to be destroyed, it is axiomatic concepts that have to be destroyed.)

    The axiomatic concepts that are at the base of human knowledge are:

    1. Existence. [Existence exists.]

    2. Consciousness. [I am conscious.]

    3. Identity, A is A. [A thing is what a thing is.]

    The best way to prove these is to try to DIS-prove them as these must be taken as true in order to negate them.

    1. If someone says that “Existence does NOT exist” then no one exists to make such a statement.
    2. If someone says that they are NOT conscious (or that their listener is NOT conscious) then the speaker cannot speak (and the listener cannot hear.)
    3. If someone wants to say that A is NOT A then the object that the speaker is referring to is NOT the object that the speaker is referring to. In comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges, this becomes an invalid process when apples become oranges and oranges become apples.

    When I say that rights are “rationally demonstrable,” I am saying that the syllogism which proves them is based on THESE three axiomatic concepts and NOT on someone’s ARBITRARY opinion; Jefferson’s nor anyone else’s.

    Yes. People can be taught how to prove the existence of, the validation of, and the definition of, rights without ever having to learn civil or criminal court procedures, legalese, or having to become a skilled orator. A toddler can be made to understand what rights are.

    It is EASY to disprove that our unalienable rights are NOT “self-evident” in that if our unalienable rights were self evident then they would be obvious to everyone, even new born babies and toddlers, and unalienable rights, as well as rights in general, are often unknown to young children as well as many adults.

    Since rights are NOT “self-evident” then they are, as referents in existence (i.e. abstract concepts), debatable and arguable. The fact that they are often denied in a court of law, as evidenced by the 98% conviction rate in FEDERAL COURTS, underscores the fact that most people lack the knowledge of what rights are and that rights are NOT “self-evident.” Otherwise the score would, likely, be more like 50%.

    The government DOES have a “defense against that which is declared to be “self-evident”” in simply saying that “I don’t see it so it must NOT be “self-evident;” BUT the psycho-epistemological state of Western civilization being what it was at that time, and Jefferson apparently understanding this, Jefferson chose his words wisely for effect and with success.

    No, the government can NOT “beat “rationally demonstrable,”” at least NOT in a court of law. “Rationally demonstrable” means that the syllogism proving the existence of unalienable rights and proving the validity of unalienable rights IS based on the axiomatic concepts of Existence, Consciousness, and Identity, concepts that no court in the universe could disprove.
    Summing up, I offer my apology for straying off topic. Yet in my straying off topic I touched on a disagreement that you and I have which I believe needs to be addressed. I am working on a series of papers about this, and similar topics and, when I get a ROUND tuit, I will finish them.

    As you and I obviously disagree on these points, I will send the completed papers to you via email for you to critique as I can think of no better critic than someone who disagrees with me.
    “Now, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.”

     
    • Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)

      June 20, 2011 at 7:30 PM

      To reason is a matter of faith.

      What but faith in reason would lead us to claim that the mental faculty of reason is self-evidently supreme?

      An almost blind faith in reason is required for humans to crown it above all other mental capabilities.

      To ascertain the meaning of fact, reason (and not the five or six senses) is relied upon because reason is capable of extrapolating from sense data, construing and defining the combinations it has thus defined, and categorizing them.

      That is why conclusions based on facts (evidence) AND argument comprise the theoretical efficacy of law and jurisprudence in a court of LAW.

      The truth, on the other hand, does not concern the findings of a rationally concluded and duly processed proceeding.

      To arrive at truth (which few care to arrive at anymore) the entirety of intellect and intuition, including reaon, the senses and memory need to combine into an EPIPHANY…something perhaps arrived at over long ages by civilization or instananeously among individual men…an even greater leap of faith.

      We live on faith.

       
      • Dan

        June 20, 2011 at 10:26 PM

        YOU may “live on faith” but I live on REASON. I am NOT a faithist and I expect to get thrown off this blog and probably have my IP address blocked because that is how faithists deal with non-faithists. They rely on and appeal to force because reason, integrating the evidence of the senses, is NOT available as a tool for faithists to persuade people with as in “be reasonable.” No, faithists expect to be taken ON FAITH, that is: “Don’t ask for any proof and don’t ask me any questions. Just believe me. It’s true because I say so. It’s true because I believe it. It’s true because I think it and whatever YOU think or demonstrate to me will make no difference.”

        Faith is the belief in something with zero evidence. Reason is the integrating of ALL the evidence of the senses into one tautological whole of knowledge. Reason is NOT “a matter of faith.” Reason is different from faith and faith is even the enemy of reason.

        Faith and force . . . are corollaries: every period of history dominated by mysticism (faith), was a period of statism, of dictatorship, of tyranny.”

         
      • Don

        September 26, 2012 at 1:20 PM

        TO: Dominick Mastroserio and Dan

        I live/exist under a Rock a/k/a The Rock of Ages.So,don’t tread on me,Daniel. I stay secured under that Rock because I live on reason too.

         
    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 22, 2011 at 6:29 AM

      To Dan:
      Tell Bill (SLICK) Clinton what the definition of is IS.
      P.S.
      I would like to know what your thoughts,etc. are re: the 9th Article in addition also called the 9th Amendment of The united States Constitution means,especially the word “OTHERS”. Every state constitution has an article with the exact wording as the “National Constitution.”

       
      • Adask

        June 22, 2011 at 12:10 PM

        The 9th Amendment declares, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

        These “other” rights must include the God-given, unalienable Rights which are expressly declared in the “Declaration of Independence” and which are the foundation for American Liberty, individual sovereignty and the “republican form of government.”

        Thus, the 9th Amendment is probably an important means for asserting your “sovereignty”.

        But–WHO can assert his sovereignty and God-given unalienable Rights (or any other rights) under the 9th Amendment? Only members of the “PEOPLE”. If you identify yourself–or allow yourself to be identified–as a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States, inhabitant, person, human, driver, operator, businessman, fiduciary, parent, etc, your claim to “other” rights under the 9th Amendment will probably be ignored.

        To make an effective claim under the 9th Amendment, you must first establish your STANDING to make the claim as one of We the People of The United States of America and/or or one of the People of a State of the Union (such as the “People of The State of Texas”).

        I would argue that if you are not a man or woman made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28, you are not one of the People. If you’re not one of the People, you may be deemed something akin to an “animal” or fiction or something human/monstrous and therefore not entitled to the “other” rights granted by God and referenced in the 9th Amendment.

         
      • Dan

        June 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM

        To Donald Blaine-Bailey :

        is
           /ɪz/ Show Spelled[iz]

        -verb
        1.
        3rd person singular present indicative of be.

        —Idiom
        2.
        as is. as1 ( def. 25 ) .
        Use is in a Sentence
        See images of is
        Search is on the Web

        Origin:
        before 900; Middle English, Old English; cognate with Dutch is, Old Norse es, er, German, Gothic ist, Latin est, Greek estí, OCS jestĭ, Sanskrit asti

        Unless Bill (SLICK) Clinton reads this blog, you are going to have to tell him yourself.
        P.S.
        Al answered this one, quite nicely I might add.

         
      • Don

        September 21, 2012 at 7:21 PM

        Dan,
        Why are/were you so upset with me for saying:Tell Bill (SLICK) Clinton what the definition of is IS.

        I thought you would get a chuckle out of it. Are you totally devoid of having any sense of humor?

         
  13. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 21, 2011 at 3:31 PM

    To Dominick:
    You say in pertinent part: “………reason is required for humans……” Where did this word, HUMAN(S), originate? I understand mankind consists of Man and Woman (man with a womb), but HUman?? From that which I understand in researching the term/word “human”, I am not a HUman. I am a man. However, I am “open” for more knowledge,etc. to show what I may be missing,etc.

     
    • Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)

      June 21, 2011 at 5:23 PM

      I don’t know or care how that treasonous and occult mob who may or may not have usurped the original and only valid ferderal government of The United States of America whose sovereign people derive their self-evident rights only from God use the word “human” or “people”…

      When I use the words “human” or “people” I use it in the same spirit as was set forth in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence:

      “When in the course of >humanpeoplemankind< requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

      I really don't care how any other power or suzerainity, whether covert or overt, construe and define any extant word when said words derive from and are included in the English dictionary and are not "intellectual property"…I use them as they've been used in all English literature throughout the ages.

      With one caveat: The Courtroom.

      In the courtroom I am dealing with laws and/or statutes as these are understood "officially" and sense that I am in a hostile environment where a language foreign and perhaps antithetical to common usage, my welfare and liberty may be in effect.

      Whenever I open a law book or read juridical opinions I know I'm dealing with people whose paramount concern is covering their asses and as a result they just can't get the matter stated directly and clearly…subterfuge and indirection is their mandate.

      I suppose one of the reasons lawyers go to law school is to learn a "cover your ass" form of English interspersed with bastardized Latin.

      To be continue being free then, I will employ words, their antonyms and synonyms in their proper place as I see fit (except in a courtroom) because those words belong to me; to everyone…their unique juxtapositioning take on the "atmosphere" and become the signature of any author's stye.

      In a word, then, I am alert about word usage when I am confronted with a "Devil's Advocate" in a courtroom.

      When I meet him outside I tell him to go to hell.

       
  14. Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)

    June 21, 2011 at 5:30 PM

    Wow – I don’t know what happened when I hit the “post comment” area below but the words of the Declaration of Independence were ominously deleted and scrambled and though most of us recognize them and know them instantly I will cite them here correctly” –

    “When in the Course of ‘human’ events, it becomes necessary for one ‘people’ to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of ‘mankind’ requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

    Must’ve been the use of …let’s see.

     
    • Adask

      June 21, 2011 at 9:57 PM

      It’s entirely possible and even likely that 1) the use of “human” in the Declaration was “innocent”–based on a definition that did not degrade the people into something other than sovereign individual made in God’s image; and 2) the word “human” was SUBSEQUENTLY defined in Ballentine’s Law Dictionary to signify a “monster”.
      In the alternative, the Founders might’ve used “human events” to signify the feudal context wherein the vast majority of people were living like animals or monsters with only one sovereign (earthly king) per country.
      It’s unlikely, but perhaps the Founders intended to imply that the “human events” were ended by the assertion that “ALL men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”–which I believe to be the fundamental principles of individual sovereignty as was recognized in Chisholm v Georgia (A.D. 1793) where the Supreme Court declared that Americans were intended to be “soverignS without subjects”.

       
      • Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)

        June 21, 2011 at 10:38 PM

        I see what you mean and Ballantine’s Law Dictionary, again, is for those Devil’s Advocates who are probably drilled, throughout law school, about the legalistic implications and applications of all these suspect definitions that really have no place in the tradition of English literature.

        For me it is always the ambient spirit of his usage and not the word where an author’s true meaning can be found.

        Authors of law dictionaries and commentary at best can convey a spirit of jusice…at worst, well – Ballentine’s Law Dictionary’s definition of “human” says it all…they seem to rest upon and build their abstractions from definitions not only not in common usage but completely hidden from common consciousness.

        Time to hit the sack before my eyeballs explode.

         
      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 21, 2011 at 10:52 PM

        SUBJECT is the word used by the Executive Branch to describe me, if no one else. I have too many “tickets” that say so,e.g., the Law enFORCEment Officer writing: ” I observed the Subject;” The Subject refused to cooperate & on & on & on. One time, listening to my scanner, “S.O. 21 said to the dispatcher: ” Subjects are everywhere. So we are all SUBJECTS to “them” & to the courts. They are RUTHLESS TYRANTS !!! Barbarian Savages. They are the HUmans!!

         
      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 22, 2011 at 1:46 AM

        Yeah ! You’re right ! I overlooked the scripture in Genesis 1 where it says and God (The Elohiym) said let US make a HUMAN in OUR image. Not Man, but a HUMAN.
        Also, us & our are Plural words, aren’t they? If I said to you, “let’s go see so & so,or, let’s go swimming”, you would know exactly what I mean. Let’s, is short for, let us. Is that correct? Maybe I’m missing something there too.
        Do you have a driver License? Social Security Number? Tell you something else that will convince you I am looney. That Number IS, not the, but A Mark of the Beast. Remember the NAME OR the NUMBER?? Now you KNOW I’m off my rocker.

         
    • Don

      September 11, 2012 at 4:40 PM

      Hi Dominick,
      The “dissolving” was necessary BECAUSE of HUMAN events. The HUMAN events listed/mentioned are not very pretty are they? I believe the Forefathers understood HUMAN EVENTS better than most people. If you want to be a HUman,go for it.

       
  15. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 21, 2011 at 5:56 PM

    It seems to me that those “human events” made it necessary for “one People” to dissolve & declare the causes which impelled them to depart & separate from those “HUMAN events.” The causes listed & stemming from “human” events are appalling & it seems to me that in itself puts “human” in a bad light & that is saying something good about it.

     
  16. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 21, 2011 at 6:07 PM

    P.S. Federal is also close to Feudal (feuderal). Well the FEUDERALS are going to have their Funerals too. THEN they will give an accounting to the Supreme Judge of the Universe. I personally believe they are AGENTS of SATAN & why tell them to “go” where they are already going?

     
  17. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 22, 2011 at 8:53 AM

    To Dominick.
    If your comment was about me, I think you meant ambivalent.

     
  18. Jerry Lee

    June 22, 2011 at 11:22 PM

    Words, they drive mankind. The one thing you may take to the Bank is the English language is always evolving. Case in point the word human being.
    human being See MONSTER.
    —Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (1930)
    monster: A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.
    —Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (1930)
    To Wit: American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828

    In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.
    – Preface

    This is the language that was in use when The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America and Federal constitution were written.
    HU’MAN, a. [L. humanus; Heb. form, species.]
    1. Belonging to man or mankind; pertaining or relating to the race of man; as a human voice; human shape; human nature; human knowledge; human life.
    2. Having the qualities of a man.
    3. Profane; not sacred or divine; as a human author. [Not in use.]
    HUMAN’ITY, n. [L. humanitas.]
    1. The peculiar nature of man, by which he is distinguished from other beings. Thus Christ, by his incarnation, was invested with humanity.
    2. Mankind collectively; the human race.
    If he is able to untie those knots, he is able to teach all humanity.
    It is a debt we owe to humanity.
    3. The kind feelings, dispositions and sympathies of man, by which he is distinguished from the lower orders of animals; kindness; benevolence; especially, a disposition to relieve persons in distress, and to treat with tenderness those who are helpless and defenseless; opposed to cruelty.
    4. A disposition to treat the lower orders of animals with tenderness, or at least to give them no unnecessary pain.
    5. The exercise of kindness; acts of tenderness.
    6. Philology; grammatical studies

    HU’MANKIND, n. The race of man; mankind; the human species

    BE’ING, ppr. [See Be.] Existing in a certain state. Man, being in honor, abideth not. Ps.49.
    BE’ING, n. Existence; as, God is the author of our being.
    In God we live, and move, and have our being. Acts 17.
    1. A particular state or condition. [This is hardly a different sense.]
    2. A person existing; applied to the human race.
    3. An immaterial, intelligent existence, or spirit.
    Superior beings, when of late they saw.
    A mortal man unfold all nature’s law–
    4. An animal; any living creature. Animals are such beings, as are endowed with sensation and spontaneous motion

     
  19. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 23, 2011 at 12:34 AM

    “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, it’s meaning does alter.That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” It appears that “evolving English words” along with the “merger of law and equity and what the courts call the development of the law knocks this in the head.” The Holy Bible is a written instrument too. But evolving English words?? The word “gay” meant something entirely different many years ago than what it means today OR “All the darkies in the song, My ol Kentucky Home were, well to put it nicely, homosexuals. I don’t like the words queers, faggots, etc. Also, I knew the Ballentine definition of human being more than 25 years ago. In addition, I like Robert Bork’s idea on “originalism” (judicial philosophy) as you probably already know. On top of ALL this, I am willing to lay odds that no one on this blog has been trampled to death over the years and spent more time in jail for victimless crimes than I have. I do not like attorneys but one told me 17 years ago, this. He said: “Don PLEASE listen, They(judges,etc) know you are right, they now see they are not going to break your spirit, but Don here is something you don’t know. If you stay here any longer, you are next & SOON to be DEAD RIGHT. ” Well “they” had already killed my wife,stole my paid(?) for home, & I knew I could not do anything being dead, but from what has transpired since then, I wish I had stayed. This occurred in good ol Carlsbad, New Mexico. Now please don’t call this “Bailey’s Lament.” I have been standing up to and against this depraved barbaric system for over 30 years. Thank You Heavenly Father that my time is at hand!!! Thank you Thank you Thsnk you.!!!

     
  20. Harry

    June 23, 2011 at 8:23 PM

    You know the question as to the the meaning of the word “is” reminds me, cause I am an old geezer, of a line in a song from years ago that goes: “IS you IS or IS you ain’t my baby?” Well, perhaps we should change that line to: “Is you is or is you ain’t a hu-man person?

    In any case I think it is wise to remember that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he KNOW them because they are spiritually discerned. BUT he that is spiritual [i.e. the spiritual man] judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no MAN. [I wonder if the courts know that?] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.” I Cor. 2:14-16

    If we do then it might be of value to us to begin using it.

    When I am asked if I am a resident I usually answer by saying, I am a spiritual man. My citizenship is in heaven. I am not a member of the community or corporation aka the body politic. I am a member of the household of God and a stranger to the state of the forum. I have not voluntarily submitted myself to the dominion or ownership of such a form of non-republican worldly government and therefore I do not owe allegiance to the two department, so to speak, and being not within their respective spheres I have no duty to pay the penalties. See: U.S. v. Cruikshank . I then refer them to the appropriate verse(s) in the Holy Bible if they require evidence of the truth of status and estate while sojourning in this world.

    It is also important to remember that, “NOW [not sometime in the future but NOW] we have received, NOT the spirit of the world [worldly government], but the Spirit who is of God; that we might KNOW the things that are FREELY GIVEN TO US OF GOD. I Cor. 2: 12

    Do we know the things that are freely given us of God? If we do not, how can we belligerently claim them?

    You know, there are three types of “civil rights.” To wit:

    “Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen OF the state or country, or, in a wider sense, TO ALL ITS INHABITANTS, and [these civil rights] are NOT CONNECTED to the organization and administration of government. They include, the rights of property, marriage, protection by the LAWS [not government protection which requires we pay tribute], freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc. Winnett v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, 99 N.W. 681 Cited in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, page 1487 within the definition of the term “RIGHT” under Constitutional Law.

    There are also “civil rights” appertaining to a PERSON in virtue of his citizenship IN a state or community [ NOTE: The word “community” in the civil law means corporation or body politic]. They are rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. The term “civil rights” also applies to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the 13th and 14th amendment to the constitution, and by various acts of congress made in pursuance thereof. They are the same rights that white people have but their source of origin is the federal government or congress rather than our Creator. See: Privileges and immunities in Black’s 4th where you will read:

    “Within the meaning of the 14th amendment of the United States constitution, such privileges as are fundamental, which belong to the citizens of all free governments and which have at all times been enjoyed by citizens of the United States? They are ONLY those which OWE THEIR EXISTENCE to the federal government, ITS national character, ITS Constitution, OR its LAWS.

    Of course the “privileges and immunities” spoken of in Article IV of the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union could not be the same “privileges and immunities” that owe their existence to the federal government within the meaning of the14th amendment because there was no 14th amendment at that time in history.when the Articles of Confederation was written and the Articles of Confederation are still in effect and one of the four foundational law documents on which the existence of The United States of America stands. If there was no perpetual union there could never be a more perfect union as I see it.

    Do we know the things or rights that are given us of God – i.e. those things that are not connected with the organization and administration of government?

     
  21. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 24, 2011 at 8:49 PM

    To who it may or may not concern:

    I thought my reply about IS & Bill Clinton would generate a chuckle. I did not think it would upset anyone. Also, I did not ask for anyone to explain to me what the definition of is IS. Most of what I have asked to be explained has not, with the exception of two or three other members. Sometimes when I ask a question I only want to see how others “see it” & there are times when I am uncertain, & there are many times I am at a complete loss to know what some things mean.

    Here is what I believe re;The Ninth Amendment. First of all I don’t think it is an amendment. It is the Ninth Article in Addition….. but the meaning of it IS what counts. I believe it means anyone can do anything he/she wants to as long as what he/she IS doing IS not injuring anyone else or prove- able that It will be.become injurious to someone else. However I also believe, now,due to the mer-ger of law & equity and the development of the law, what I believe the meaning of of the “9th” IS IS considered frontier gibberish thinking at least by GOV.CO.

     
    • Dan

      June 25, 2011 at 12:23 AM

      Don’t ask questions you don’t want answered, especially of me by calling me out by name.

      You made a cheap shot against me and you know it.

      And I know it.

      And anyone with a brain who sees it knows it.

      Man up to it.

       
      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 25, 2011 at 7:04 AM

        Dan

        June 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM

        To Donald Blaine-Bailey :

        is
           /ɪz/ Show Spelled[iz]

        -verb

        What is showing above is just part of what can be seen by scrolling up, at least that is the way it works on my computer. It is from Dan to the best of my knowledge & understanding. I did not knowingly request for Dan or anyone to send me the definition of IS. I did ask Dan, at least I thought I did,what his (Dan’s) thoughts, etc. were re: the 9th Article/Amendment (hereafter,9th) & as best as I can tell/understand,It looks like Alfred Adask responded to my request re: the 9th so apparently I did something wrong but it was an honest mistake. I have said before that I am a novice at understanding how,in many ways, to use computers & computer terms. All I knew was, something is not making sense here. Why, I thought,did Alfred Adask respond to my request re: the 9th when I thought I ask Dan what his thoughts were re: the 9th. So, from what transpired up until then, I thought I probably upset someone so I responded in pertinent part as follows as I did not know who to respond to.

        Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 24, 2011 at 8:49 PM

        To who it may or may not concern:

        I thought my reply about IS & Bill Clinton would generate a chuckle. I did not think it would upset anyone. Also, I did not ask for anyone to explain to me what the definition of is IS.

        The above message from me in its entirety can be seen by scrolling up. Anyway by trying to say I wanted to generate some laughter re Bill Clinton & what the definition of is is, this is the response I get as follows

        Dan

        June 25, 2011 at 12:23 AM

        “Don’t ask questions you don’t want answered, especially of me by calling me out by name.

        You made a cheap shot against me and you know it.

        And I know it.

        And anyone with a brain who sees it knows it.

        Man up to it.” (End of message)

        Dear Dan,

        1.-What was the question I asked that I did not want answered

        2.- I do not knowingly make cheap shots against anyone and I do not knowingly mean to belittle anyone except “GOV-CO persons.”

        3. You make it obvious that I don’t have a brain. I do, but I confess it is not in pristine condition.It has been “taxed a lot.”

        What do you mean by: Man up to it?

        I do apologize to you for undoubtedly upsetting you. I did not mean too. If & when I can discover what I did wrong I will certainly make it up to you if possible.

        Sincerely,
        Donald Blaine-Bailey

         
      • Don

        September 11, 2012 at 4:47 PM

        To Dan, You are a DAMN LIAR !! Cut & Paste What you said I wrote that was a cheap shot,YOU DAMN LIAR !!!!!

         
      • Don

        September 21, 2012 at 7:32 PM

        WHAT WAS THE CHEAP SHOT?? CUT & PASTE THE CHEAP SHOT !! SO I WILL KNOW WHAT YOU “IS” TALKING ABOUT !!!

         
  22. Jerry Lee

    June 24, 2011 at 10:14 PM

    I stumble on this about a year ago. As most of us we always use phrase the Constitution for the United States not of the United States. Staying in that thought mode the following.

    Submitted for your thoughtful consideration by Jesse Enloe.

    The word is OF

    It depends on what the meaning of OF is.
    I just recently learned the LEGAL definition of a word “we use many times daily in our conversations. It explains a lot about how the Corporation, USA, Inc., looks at and deals with us, the People, as something different than what we are.
    It amazes me that something so seemingly simple has escaped me up to now, but at least now I know it..

    Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed:
    Of: A term denoting that from -which anything proceeds; indicating origin, source, descent, and the like; as, he is of noble blood. Associated with or connected-with, usually in some casual relation, efficient, material, formal, or final. The word has been held equivalent to after; at, or belonging to; in possession of: manufactured by; residing at; from. [Emphasis added]

    We need to look at how we use this word in regard to Citizenship. If I claim to be a Citizen OF anything, I am saying, by legal definition, that it is superior to me. Since I was created by God, He is the only thing greater than I. So it would be correct to say that I am OF God.

    Heaven forbid that I would ever admit to being a citizen OF the United States. That simply would put me as under subjection to the Corporation, USA, Inc, as their creation. It would validate their presumption that I was a surety for a legal fiction, the Straw Man, which is subject, as their creation, to all of their corporate ordinances, rules, statutes, regulations, codes, procedures, etc.
    In fact, it is NOT even correct to say that I am a Citizen OF the Republic of Texas.
    The correct way to communicate this thought is to say “I am a Texas Republic Citizen.” By this statement, I retain the sovereignty, freedom and liberty given by my Creator.
    For those living in the states of the American Union, they should simply state, “I am an American Citizen.”

    Remember, this is only important in the LEGAL sense, but that is what they use against us.

    So it would seem ‘They” are letting us know the Constitution Of The United States belongs to ‘Them’ not us the American people.

     
  23. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 25, 2011 at 12:12 AM

    To Jerry Lee

    Article 1 Section 1

    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

    This says “Citizen of the United States.” It also says: Inhabitant of that State

    I think it IS important that the word “person” begins with a Capital P denoting a “proper noun.” Same applies to “citizen.” Above, it shows a capital C

    In the 14th Amendment, person & citizen are common nouns.

    However, I have used everything from “abalone fishing to zoo management” (ha) & nothing has worked. One time in “court” when I decided not to say anything, I was found in contempt & put in a torture chamber they called the “BLUE ROOM” for 30 days. They used the “water boarding on me.”
    All because I refused to get a driver license. Other “inmates” were driven to court. They ALWAYS made me walk, Walk? excuse me, I should have said Waddle as I always had leg irons on. I guess that’s why the judge, instead of saying, Please step forward as he did to other prisoners,told me to WADDLE ON UP HERE. I said more about this in an earlier post somewhere. Anyway OF IS used in Article 1,Section 1 of the original Constitution FOR the united States.

    I hope I don’t upset you because I LIKE YOU!! that is an understatement.

     
  24. Jerry Lee

    June 25, 2011 at 11:43 AM

    To: Donald Blaine-Bailey
    I concur with you on the writing of words especially common nouns vs Proper nouns. I have made comment before using the common /Proper nouns as to their meaning and I doubt very few if any knew the reason behind such word use. Thank you.
    I too believe that a dual system is in operation in America today as well as two English languages and they are used accordingly in each sphere of jurisdiction. That being said there is no guarantees even if one is 110% right. The bastards have killed and will continue to kill Americans for exercising and claiming Their constitutional ‘Protected Rights”.
    I am sure you know that the 14th was not properly ratified/amended to the Federal constitution but is that of the National constitution. That the original 14th is today’s purported 13th amendment. Not only has this been document by archive state and Federal records, state courts and even several time put in the records of Congress on more then one occasion. Yet We as a People continue to let this cancer continue to grow will sooner then later be the cause of death for the Republic.
    I have on more then one occasion argue with my son the ‘Sheriff’ and have proved that I do have God Given Rights and have won in “His” system even to the point where I carry My Common Law Travel Papers.
    One point My daughter’s son [G-son] ask Me why do you let Uncle Mike into the house? We were discussing the 2nd amendment vs His CA Code. Told Him I did not see any subsets which His code could trump My 2nd amendment.That is when I told Him He was acting like a 14th citizen. I do believe that We share these Rights in common and have to claim them as Private Rights.
    I have since retired and now Domicile in My native Ohio. I too gave Ca back Their Driving privilege since I was not in commerce another win that when against My son employer. He would not even let Me sit behind the wheel of His new “car” to sojourn on the public roads.
    I have started research on how to remove My Property [home]from the Public side of ‘this State’ the Private side My [E]state. My wife is not to happy with this idea.
    This information is for that slave citizen:
    BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY ABRIDGED SIXTH EDITION Centennial Edition (1891-1991)
    Federal citizenship Page 442; [I do believe this has been removed from newer edition]
    Federal citizenship: Rights and obligations accruing by reason of being a citizen of the United States.
    State or Status of being a citizen of the United States.
    A person born or naturalized [in the United States] and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen of the United States and the State wherein he resides. Fourteenth Amend., U.S. Const.
    ————————————————————————————————————
    Unbeknownst to most people, the class termed “US citizen” did not exist as a political status until 1866. It was a class and “political status” created for the newly freed slaves and did not apply to the people inhabiting the states of the union who were at that time state Citizens.
    “On the other hand, there is a significant historical fact in all of this. Clearly, one of the purposes of the 13th and 14th Amendments and of the 1866 act and of section 1982 was to give the Negro citizenship. . .”
    Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967), 379 F.2d 33, 43.

    “The object of the 14th Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship.”
    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 692.
    CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE, SECTION 9301-9342
    9307. (h) The United States *is located in the District of Columbia.
    * So is THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA… not the State of California

    Uniform Commercial Code – Article 9
    § 9-307. LOCATION OF DEBTOR. (h) Location of United States.
    The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
    USC: Title 4, Section 72: The seat of government is located in the District of Columbia, (ten miles square).
    Federal Constitution-Article I, Sec 8, Clause 17: Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)….
    “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the *federal government” Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F. Supp 383
    U.S.C., Title 28 – Judicial and Judiciary Procedure, sec 3002.
    Definitions, (15) (A), p. 564… “United States” means (A) a federal corporation:
    The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
    In re Merriam, 163 US 625.
    And finally I think this would be applicable; Federal Constitution-Article IV, Sec 3, Clause 2 ie property… In 1914 the Supreme Court stated that a U.S. citizen [Federal citizen], when they leave the District of Columbia, are under the interstate commerce clause. As such, they can be regulated, controlled, and taxed. Hendrick v. Maryland, 59 LEd 385
    Best Regards, Jerry Lee

     
    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 27, 2011 at 1:35 AM

      To Jerry Lee:
      I desire to respond to more of your comments made on June 25.11:43 AM but right now re: your statement of: “I have started research on how to remove My Property [home]from the Public side of ‘this State’ the Private side My [E]state.” Now IF I am understanding correctly, you are sick & tired of being sick & tired of continually paying an “annual rental fee” a/k/a PROPERTY TAX. I think you agree it is really an ANNUAL RENTAL FEE. If I am understanding you and you agree with what I have just written, I know of one man and one man only who has done just this. His place of abode, is in what is commonly known as & called,The Texas Panhandle. If you want to know more about this let me know & let me know if there is a way we can communicate other than using this platform. I think I’m about to get kicked off anyway. I know you want to know if I have used this “knowledge, etc.” for myself & the results ,etc. The answer is No because what was used to accomplish what “this man” in Texas did, will not “fly” here in New Mexico & he let me know this in no uncertain terms. Even if it would fly here I don’t have a home anymore to let’s say work with. It was stolen around 20 years ago. That’s another story. I believe that what my friend accomplished in Texas will work for you because, & here is something I cannot get anyone to understand, You live in a State that existed BEFORE the “WAR Amendments.” See how this can continue? I admire you Jerry Lee you are a man after my own heart & so is Alfred Adask. I just don’t want to use his platform to discuss, etc things that maybe I should not. After I “send” this then I will see all of my misspellings, etc.

       
  25. Adask

    June 25, 2011 at 5:30 PM

    I’m very please by the intelligence and individual research efforts that are increasingly evident in the “comments” on this blog. Readers can sometimes learn as much (or more) from the comments than they did from my original article. I am delighted.

     
  26. Martin-Lynn

    September 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

    Does anybody know anybody that voted for the 14th amendment?

     
    • Adask

      September 10, 2012 at 12:13 AM

      I was going to, but I was sick that day.

       
    • Don

      September 11, 2012 at 7:53 PM

      Hi Martin-Lynn,
      Fred said he did. I decided not to because the song, My ol Kentucky Home, said in flat outright terms that the “darkies” are gay & I abhor gays.

       
  27. Don

    September 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

    To Alfred: Re: I was going to, but I was sick that day.

    THANK YOU for the great belly laugh.Laughter is truly good for the soul but since there are at least two sides to every story,e.g. Satan is laughing now too. BUT re: that sort of laughter our Creator says He will have the last laugh.Point is: It is the end result that matters in all things.

    I noticed that in the bginning of this article several photos of Federal Reserve Notes are showing.
    These are really pictures of actual/real dollars. Let me explain. Where it is written “This note…..”
    the reason the word note is written instead of dollar is for the purpose of “saving ink & printing costs.” The same reason applies to what was written after that,e.g. ….redeemable in lawful money… This was deleted ONLY to save ink & printing costs. The complete sentence/paragraph ended with a period denoting a complete phrase/meaning,etc.The period was deleted to save ink & printing costs. Pay to the bearer on demand was deleted to save ink & printing costs. Most people don’t know these things but I do because I’m smart. My Mama didn’t raise no fool.

     
  28. Big M

    April 6, 2014 at 10:51 AM

    It should be noted that the legal definition of money does not include NOTES, stocks, bonds or certificates. They are debt obligations or, more properly, IOUs. If you look at these Federal Reserve Notes, every single one says “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” They do not say ” . . . for PAYMENT OF all debts . . . ”

    Therefore, they are IOUs. And by the way, IOUs cannot be taxed as income. Take your 1040s and their instruction booklets and toss them in the nearest trash can.

     
  29. Big M

    April 6, 2014 at 10:52 AM

    By the way, please ask the webmaster to fix this page so that the comments at the bottom can be read.

     
  30. Fights for rights

    January 21, 2017 at 12:39 AM

    The 1805 case below may help to prove your point. States are not states as states were defined by the law of nations. The quote says that states cease to be actual states after they joined the union.

    Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 US 445 – Supreme Court 1805
    “the word state is used in the constitution as designating a member of the union, and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations.”

    I do not know what states are.
    Apparently even the State says it is not a state. From Maine Title 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
    Chapter 3: RULES OF CONSTRUCTION §72. Words and phrases

    21. State. “State,” used with reference to any organized portion of the United States, may mean a territory or the District of Columbia.
    (and)
    26-A. United States. “United States” includes territories and the District of Columbia.

    The complete 1805 case is posted below. Verify this case at your leisure.

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5321836890037975507&q=Hepburn+v.+Ellzey,+6+US+445+-+Supreme+Court+1805&hl=en&as_sdt=10000006

    6 U.S. 445 (____)

    2 Cranch 445

    HEPBURN AND DUNDAS
    v.
    ELLZEY.[†]

    Supreme Court of United States.

    E.J. Lee, for plaintiffs.

    C. Lee, contra.

    452*452 Marshall, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court.

    The question in this case is whether the plaintiffs, as residents of the district of Columbia, can maintain an action in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Virginia.

    This depends on the act of congress describing the jurisdiction of that court. That act gives jurisdiction to the circuit courts in cases between a citizen of the state in which the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state. To support the jurisdiction in this case therefore it must appear that Columbia is a state.

    On the part of the plaintiffs it has been urged that Columbia is a distinct political society; and is therefore “a “state” according to the definitions of writers on general law.

    This is true. But as the act of congress obviously uses the word “state” in reference to that term as used in the constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a state in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the constitution.

    The house of representatives is to be composed of members chosen by the people of the several states; and each state shall have at least one representative.

    The senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state.

    Each state shall appoint, for the election of the executive, a number of electors equal to its whole number of senators and representatives.

    These clauses show that the word state is used in the constitution as designating a member of the union, and excludes 453*453 from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations. When the same term which has been used plainly in this limited sense in the articles respecting the legislative and executive departments, is also employed in that which respects the judicial department, it must be understood as retaining the sense originally given to it.

    Other passages from the constitution have been cited by the plaintiffs to show that the term state is sometimes used in its more enlarged sense. But on examining the passages quoted, they do not prove what was to be shown by them.

    It is true that as citizens of the United states, and of that particular district which is subject to the jurisdiction of congress, it is extraordinary that the courts of the United States, which are open to aliens, and to the citizens of every state in the union, should be closed upon them. — But this is a subject for legislative not for judicial consideration.

    The opinion to be certified to the circuit court is that that court has no jurisdiction in the case.

    [†] Present, Marshall, Ch. J. — Cushing, Paterson, Chase and Washington, Justices.

    (I know this reply is almost 3 years after the past post. This case and the state statutes fit your theory well.)

     
    • Adask

      January 21, 2017 at 9:52 AM

      Thanks very much for sharing your research. Much appreciated.

       

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