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:
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.
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.
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.