RSS

Is the “Declaration of Independence” a Treaty?

08 Jan

English: This is a high-resolution image of th...

This is a high-resolution image of the United States Declaration of Independence (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I seem to deal with this problem every 6 to 12 months.  Someone reads what we’ve come to call the “Declaration of Independence” and sees that its proper name is “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” and leaps to the conclusion the proper name for this country must be the “united States of America”.

Back in the 1990s, when I first saw the proper name for our “Declaration of Independence,” I leaped to the very same conclusion.  I thought, “Damn!  The proper name for this country must be ‘united States of America’!!!  No wonder we’re having so much trouble in court!  We don’t even understand the proper name of our own country!!!

But over time, I realized that my conclusion (the proper name for this country is the “united States of America”) was mistaken.  That conclusion is a “rookie” mistake and I suppose that all of us who study our country’s political and legal foundation have already made it or are destined to make it at some point in the future.

•  For example, here’s a recent comment on my blog:

“I am surprised you did not pick up on or comment on the uncapitalized “u” in the word “united” in the original document and correctly reproduced in the early printings of the Declaration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg”>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg”

Given that I’ve addressed this issue in the past on radio shows, or in my former magazine (“AntiShyster”), and probably on this blog, I was a little bit surprised that I felt “compelled” to write a reply.

But sometimes, it’s as if the Good LORD makes me read things I don’t want to read, or respond to things I personally don’t want to respond to.  I don’t hear a voice.  It’s not an absolute “compulsion”.  It’s just something like getting a sudden “taste” for a Snickers bar. Something inside me suddenly tells me I should have a Snickers bar—or in this case, I should reply to a comment about the “united States of America”.

I know that Snickers bars aren’t really good for me.  It’s old news (to me) that “united States of America” is sometimes mistakenly taken to be the proper name for our country.   I’m a busy (or confused) man.  So, I’ve got better things to do than waste my time responding the “united States of America” issue.  Been there.  Done that.  Several times.

And yet, there was that darned “inclination” to respond to a comment that I didn’t want to respond to.  So I started writing a response and, as usually happens whenever I get one of these “inclinations,” I was much surprised to find myself learning something that might be important.

The Good LORD never wastes my time.  It seems that he’s doing so almost every time I get one of this “inclinations”.  But I always learn something—as I did today when I replied to the previous comment on “united States of America”.

•  For whatever it’s worth, my primary motive for writing this blog is not to educate my readers, but to educate myself.  I learn by writing.  The slow, pedantic process of writing forces me to slow down and patiently consider some idea that I presume to already understand.

I write. I slow down.  I take time to look and consider.  And if I’m lucky (or blessed), I suddenly “see” new insights that I had not previously imagined.

For me, writing is not simply a way of speaking and telling what I already know to others.  Writing is a way of hearing and learning insights that may flow from “what I already know”.  That’s why writing fascinates me.  It’s like going up a nearby creek to pan for gold.  I don’t always find “gold” when I write, but I’m always excited by the possibility.

Writing is not the means by which I try to help educate my readers and tell them what I think.  Writing is the means by which I help educate myself and learn things that I otherwise have not yet perceived.  So when I get that sudden “inclination” to write on a subject (like, “united States of America”), I am usually and initially annoyed by the diversion, but I always follow through in hopes of finding another small nugget of gold (or maybe fool’s gold?).

 

•  So I responded to the comment on “united States of America” as follows:

I picked up on the lower-case “u” in the word “united” in “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” (which has come to be referred to as the “Declaration of Independence”) probably about 15 years ago.  Maybe more.

The word “united” is not capitalized because it’s used as an adjective (as is the other “u”-word, “unanimous” and also the word “thirteen” in the title of that document) rather than as part of a proper name.  There was no single entity named “The United States of America,” or “United States of America” or even “United States” on July 4th, A.D. 1776. Therefore, it would’ve been improper to capitalize the world “united” as if it were part of a proper noun/proper name.

Such entity was not created until five years later, in A.D. 1781, when the Articles of Confederation first created a confederation and perpetual Union that was expressly named “The United States of America”.

The “Declaration” of July 4th, A.D. 1776 merely created thirteen separate and independent States that were no more united into a single political entity than China and Brazil are today. Nevertheless, on July 4th, A.D. 1776, these thirteen independent States or “countries” were acting in a “united” fashion by drafting the “Declaration of Independence”.  While those thirteen new States were acting in a “united” manner, they were doing so just like thirteen completely separate States or countries (like Brazil and China) might agree to act in concert in a treaty.

(Damn!  There’s my “daily nugget”.  I won’t say that it’s absolutely true, but it’s at least arguable that the nature of our “Declaration of Independence” is that of a treaty! That hypothesis might not strike y’all as particularly insightful, but as you’ll read, it just might be.)

As of July 4th, A.D. 1776, these thirteen new States/countries were not “united” into a single political entity similar to the singular nation composed of several formerly independent countries that was once called the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”—USSR.

Because the newly-created, thirteen States had not yet been joined into a single “country,” they had no single, proper name such as “The United States of America,” “United States of America” or even “United States”.  Therefore, as used in “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,” the word “united” was used as an adjective and properly and necessarily lower-case.

I’m grateful for the reader’s comment on “united States of America” because, in responding, I realized that the “Declaration of Independence” might be properly understood to be the first treaty among the thirteen, newly-created but independent States.

 

•  Up until now, I’d thought that the only proper way to access the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration of Independence” was through the 9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which declares,

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

In other words, while the Constitution might expressly declare or enumerate several “rights” (as in the Bill of Rights), that enumeration could not be presumed to be complete.  Other rights existing at the time of the Constitution’s ratification would continue to exist and be recognized by the government even though they were not expressly mentioned in the Constitution.

Therefore, if you wanted to claim any of the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration of Independence” you must first identity yourself as one of the “people” of the several “United States” and/or of “The United States of America,” and claim your God-given, unalienable Rights (such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—but there are others) by means of the 9th Amendment.

But today, for the first time, I realize that “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” might be viewed as not only the document that created those first thirteen States, but perhaps also as the first treaty among those first thirteen States.

 

•  Trying to describe the nature of our “Declaration of Independence” raises a peculiar question:  What, exactly, is that document?

Technically, it “incorporated” the first thirteen States.  Is it therefore properly described as a “corporate charter”?  (Thirteen corporate charters rolled into one?)

But it also dissolved the “political bands” that had previously bound the pre-existing colonies to Great Britain.  Does that make it some sort document of “corporate dissolution”?

Or was it a document that specified all of the breaches of trust committed by King George, and was therefore intended to be an official “notice” of the dissolution of the previous trust relationship between the colonies and Great Britain?

In truth, the “Declaration” accomplished several different objectives that might otherwise have been achieved by means of several different instruments.

I.e., for the sake of clarity, the first instrument might’ve officially terminated the contractual and/or fiduciary relationship of each of the thirteen colonies to Great Britain.

A second instrument might’ve officially created each of the thirteen States out of the former colonies and included a declaration of the principles (“All men are created equal,” etc.) on which each new State was bound to act.

A third instrument might’ve been expressly described as the first “Treaty” between the newly formed, independent States to act in concert in their separation from, and war with, King George.

However, instead of complicating things by drafting several documents, the Founders wrote a “Declaration of Independence” that (when supported by firearms) achieved several objectives simultaneously.

The simplicity—and political expediency—of drafting a single inspiring “Declaration” instead of several tedious legal documents—served the Founders well.  But it also left some confusion as to the essential nature of the “Declaration” for future generations (or at least, for me).

 

•  But let’s suppose that today’s “nugget” (that the “Declaration of Independence” was a treaty) is correct.

What’s the significance?  What’s the big deal?

Well, if the “Declaration” was the first treaty among the several States when they existed as separate countries, then it may be that—in addition to accessing our God-given, unalienable Rights by means of the 9th Amendment—we can also access those rights under one or more of the four clauses in the Constitution that apply to treaties.

Those four clauses are Articles: 1.10.1 (State prohibition to make); 2.2.2 (presidential power to make); 3.2.1 (court jurisdiction); and, 6.2 (supremacy clause):

 

Article 1.10.1:  “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation . . . .”  This prohibition applies to States of the Union only after the Constitution was ratified in A.D. 1788.  It has no bearing on any treaties entered into prior to ratification of the Constitution.  Thus, treaties entered into by the States even before they created the perpetual Union with the Articles of Confederation of A.D.1781 would remain valid and effective.  If it were true that the “Declaration” were a treaty in A.D. 1776, it would still be a treaty today.

 

Article 2.2.2:  The President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; . . . .”  Since the Constitution was ratified in A.D. 1788, only the President has power to “make Treaties”.  That post-1788 restriction has no bearing on the legitimacy of a treaty entered into by the States in A.D. 1776.

 

Article 3.2.1:  “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law or Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made under their Authority; . . . .”

If this clause had only referenced “treaties which shall be made,” the judicial power of the Article III courts would only apply to those treaties made after the Constitution was ratified in A.D. 1788 and would not apply to the “Declaration”/treaty of July 4th, A.D. 1776.

However, because Article 3.2.1 includes the express phrase “and Treaties made,” the judicial power extends to treaties “made” (past-tense) prior to the ratification of the Constitution in A.D. 1788.

If it were true that the “Declaration” is a treaty, then it should follow that any lawsuit that implicates the “Declaration” and/or the God-given, unalienable Rights declared therein, should open the door to being heard in an Article III, judicial court of the United States.

Thus, it appears possible that if any plaintiff or defendant raised the “Declaration” and his God-given, unalienable Rights as part of his petition or defense, that the only court that might have jurisdiction over that case would be an Article III court of the United States.

Do you begin to see why the hypothesis that the “Declaration” is a treaty could be important?

Consider:  suppose you were issued a mere traffic ticket and you found a legitimate basis to invoke the “Declaration of Independence” and/or your God-given, unalienable Rights as part of your defense.  Could you thereby challenge and perhaps even defeat the jurisdiction of the municipal court?  If cases involving treaties can only be heard by an Article III court, your local municipal court would seemingly lack jurisdiction to hear such cases.  In fact, even your state, administrative and territorial courts might have no jurisdiction to hear a case involving a treaty.

As a plaintiff, trying to even find (let alone access) an Article III court under the Constitution is difficult if not impossible.  We used to have “District Courts of the United States” under Article III of the Constitution.  We now have “United States District Courts” which are not Article III/judicial in nature, but are instead “territorial” courts probably operating under the authority of Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution (exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress over the territories).

I have no clear idea as to how to open an Article III judicial court as a plaintiff.  There are a couple of theories on how to do so, but I don’t know if anyone can actually do it.

However, if I were an alleged defendant in a case, and my first answer: 1) invoked my status as one of the “people” of “The United States of America”; 2) made a claim on my God-given, unalienable Rights; and 3) invoked both the 9th Amendment and Article 3.2.1—I might be able to challenge the jurisdiction of whichever trial court had been invoked by the plaintiff.  If I could do so successfully, I might be able to put the plaintiff in the untenable position of trying to find an Article III (judicial) court to hear his petition.  The cost and inconvenience (and potential impossibility) of invoking an Article III court might be sufficient to dissuade the plaintiff (or even prosecutor) from proceeding with his case.

This is all conjectural.  If the strategy as outlined was potentially effective, it wouldn’t be easy to implement and the “system” might work mightily to prevent the strategy from succeeding.  On the other hand, if the strategy were invoked very early in any proceeding and presented in way that seemed likely to succeed, there’s a good chance that the plaintiff/prosecutor would drop the case rather than take a chance on losing and making some explosive precedent.

 

Article 6.2:    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

If the “Declaration” is a treaty, then under the supremacy clause (Article 6.2) of the Constitution, it’s part of the “supreme Law of the Land” and the “Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”.

The problem here is that the supremacy clause applies to judges “in every State” of the Union.  It does not apply to judges acting in territories.  If it’s true that “The State of Oregon” is the proper name for a State of the Union while “STATE OF OREGON,” “Oregon,” or “OR” signify a territory, then the “territorial” judges of “STATE OF OREGON,” “Oregon,” and “OR” are not subject to the supremacy clause.

If so, a plaintiff or defendant can probably not access the “Declaration” as a treaty under the “supremacy clause” in a territorial court.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing.

If you invoked the “Declaration” under the “supremacy clause” in a territorial court of an apparent “state” (actually, territory) and did so with great skill, you might be able to compel that court to openly or at least implicitly admit that it is not a court of a State of the Union.  I guarantee that that’s not an admission that any territorial court at the “state” level will be eager to make on the record.

More, even if such admission were made, it would open the door for a defendant to challenge the court’s jurisdiction on the basis that he and all of the acts, facts, evidence and alleged offenses took place within the venue of a State of the Union and therefore was not subject to the authority of a “territorial” court.

If the law gives you lemons, make citric acid.

 

•  If you can’t use the supremacy clause (Article 6.2) successfully, you might try to also invoke the 9th Amendment to access your God-given, unalienable Rights.

But the 9th might also fail insofar as the Bill of Rights is only intended to protect the States of the Union and the people of the States of the Union from the federal government.  If you failed to establish that you and the facts of your case were all within a State of the Union, and failed to refute that you and your acts took place in a territory like “TX” or “OR,” then you might not be able to make effective claims based on the 9th Amendment.

But, if the “Declaration” really is a treaty, that’s not necessarily bad for defendants if their defense also invoked Article 3.2.1 (“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law or Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,. . . .”).  If we’re not in a State of the Union then, under Article 3.2.1, the door might swing wide open for a defense based on a treaty (the “Declaration”?) that could only be heard by an Article III (judicial) court.

 

•  So, whatcha think?  Do my “insights du jour” make any sense?  Or are they fundamentally flawed in way that makes them illusory and without value?

Lemme know.

 

Tags: , , , , ,

60 responses to “Is the “Declaration of Independence” a Treaty?

  1. Huey Campbell

    January 8, 2013 at 7:15 PM

    Adask, I like the way you think!
    I don’t feel qualified to critique you on a scholarly basis but your logic altogether resonates with me.

     
    • Paul Edward;

      January 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM

      Al,

      The only solution is invoking “Courts of Record” which can only be done by the “People”

      See: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/foundation.htm
      See: http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com/
      See: http://www.mediafire.com/?7k9kcy7fe937t

       
    • thomas russo

      December 29, 2013 at 10:24 PM

      One should get a copy of Volume 1 United States Code, within are Titles 1-4 and Title 5 sections 101-5949, Titles 1-4 are the Organic Law and must be read in the order presented paying close attention to language and dates of entry for this is the foundation of everything. You will find that there are two Constitutions one called the Constitution “for the United States” the other in Title 4 called the Constitution “of the United States”, see if you know the difference, it is very important that one does.

       
  2. PatriotOne

    January 8, 2013 at 9:01 PM

    “The problem here is that the supremacy clause applies to judges “in every State” of the Union. It does not apply to judges acting in territories. If it’s true that “The State of Oregon” is the proper name for a State of the Union while “STATE OF OREGON,” “Oregon,” or “OR” signify a territory, then the “territorial” judges of “STATE OF OREGON,” “Oregon,” and “OR” are not subject to the supremacy clause.”

    I’m beginning to wonder just how confused (or F’kd up) my brain can get. I’ll try to keep it simple notwithstanding stupidity.

    Is the United States and the several States confined to the Constitution to defend the life, liberty, and happiness’s belonging to the people?

    If the several States individually and together ARE required to defend, what makes the TERRITORY or UNION distinguishable from each other as far as the duties are concerned?

    NOWHERE does the Constitution grant GovCo and its actors the ability to CONTRACT away the rights belonging to the people. NOWHERE does the Constitution state (omg, another use for the word state) that GovCo can ignore the Constitution when GovCo is in a place called a territory or in another Country somewhere on earth.

    I believe that if the President-Congress-Governor of Tennessee (and the 49 others)-OFFICER DOE #2323-INSPECTOR JANE #3232 FBI is DEPENDENT UPON THE CONSTITUTION for the very existence of “their” position that ALL of them are ALWAYS bound to the Constitution whenever THEY ARE IN UNIFORM.

    The President IS bound to the Constitution when “HE” goes to Guantanamo, and so is EVERY military man or woman when they are at/in Guantanamo because “they” could not exist WITHOUT the Constitution.

    “If it’s true that “The State of Oregon” is the proper name for a State of the Union while “STATE OF OREGON,” “Oregon,” or “OR” signify a territory, then the “territorial” judges of “STATE OF OREGON,” “Oregon,” and “OR” are not subject to the supremacy clause.”

    It is absurd to think ^^^ there is a State of Oregon AND a territory of Oregon, ever changing depending upon what makes a claim. I say ‘WHAT MAKES’ because it seems that stuff other than Men and Women can make a claim upon Men and Women.

    AND it is also absurd that a Man claiming to be a/the STATE can make a claim upon a Man claiming that the Man is not a Man because he is a FIDUCIARY also knows as a SLAVE BELONGING TO THE STATE, the same STATE that a Man is wearing the costume of and claiming to represent.

    That is saying; as your neighbor I cannot take hold of you, BUT as soon as I clock in and dawn my IRS costume I can seize all your stuff and lock it up in the STATE garage. I cannot take your stuff and put it into my garage at my house because I am a Man there. But I can, as the IRS, give your stuff to the STATE.

    All this is F’N BULLSHIT!

    God needs to step up and inform all Men as to what is and what isn’t murder.
    If a GovCo employee demands “where is your permit to sell lemonade”, would it be murder if the girlscout put a bullet into its head? Why should the scout have to go through all the Art III Art II Sec. 1942 par 444449 – 5 US 137?

    I believe that at the very moment a GovCo employee approaches and does not hand over a bona fide summons or warrant and walk away, the employee is nothing more than a thief and should be dealt with as though it has come to commit a murder.

    Ok, so that sounds a bit out of line, I would agree. But is it any more out of line than the GovCo demanding a permit? Is GovCo demanding you purchase permission to sustain your life? OR GovCo will point a gun at you or lock you in a cage?

    How can a GovCo employee whose very position is dependent upon the Constitution escape the Constitution by going “into” a territory or another Country?

    Why have a Constitution at all?

    NOW COMES, under threat of arrest and other forms of violence and by special appearance, John Jay Doe, a/k/a JOHN JAY DOE, a Man made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28), and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights (“The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”; July 4th, A.D. 1776) I am one of the People defended by The State of __________________, a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”, I, John Jay Doe alleged defendant, writing at arms length not submitting to the court’s jurisdiction, hereby moves this court to strike or dismiss the complaint or citation # _______________ filed by ____________________-Badge #______, for failure to present a cause of action or crime. Failure to present the court a case deprives the court of jurisdiction. Grounds are further set forth below. The court is further requested to provide a full findings of fact and conclusions of law in the event the court denies this motion.

     
    • PatriotOne

      January 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM

      If the Declaration is a Treaty, although NOT stating such a relationship, with whom is the Treaty binding? Is the Treaty an agreement between the Confederation and the North West Ordinance? Is the Treaty between the people in GovCo and the people generally?

      Does the Treaty have STANDING today? Was the Treaty a voluntary agreement? Was the Treaty imposed at the barrel of a gun? Is the Treaty imposed upon the people generally or upon GovCo ACTORS or upon (ALL) other nations?

      I ask because one “Texas” legislator wants to impose a license upon women that make a living by pursueing happiness.

      “Zedler, a conservative Republican, thinks it might deter women from choosing the profession. “They won’t want to get a license as a stripper from the state of Texas,” he said, according to the Star-Telegram. “I think it would keep a lot of girls from getting involved in that lifestyle and basically wrecking their lives.””

      Is Zelder referencing the Declaration or Treaty or Constitution as his source of authority to impose his “REPUBLICAN” (or Catholic or Muslim or Baptist or NAZI or satainist) beliefs upon women?

      Because any or all of his beliefs are bona fide authorities allowing him to control women in “HIS” State of Texas or “HIS” Texas Territoty?

      Because He wants to save the women by threatening them using arrest at the barrel of a gun and locking them in cages until they purchase permission to pursue happiness and sustain their lives?

      Is Zelder citing his authority as God or King or MASTER derived from Treaty or Constitution or Confederation?

      We the People are being forced at the barrel of a gun to live within a LIE called the State. The State being a fiction equal to and nothing more than the State of Alice In Wonderland.

      Zelder and every other GovCo employee proves that neither the Confederation or North West Ordinance or Declaration or Constitution or Bill of Rights has anything to do with the people generally because the people are constantly treated as SLAVES by Gov Co employees that claim “their” OFFICE/position exist under the authority of such fiction documents however NEVER citing said documents as “their” authority when proposing and passing SO-CALLED legislation.
      and then enfliction the legislation upon people.

      Thank God for the good christian that would simply turn and walk away from such behavior, and DAMN TO HELL the false christian that would point a gun at men and women in an effort to save them. Save them from sin but not the GovCo bullets.

       
    • thomas russo

      January 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM

      The problem here is the STATE OF OREGON and Oregon, and there is a difference, take for example Ohio and THE STATE OF OHIO (OH) or called THE STATE/STATE, other than Ohio all the rest of the verbage is FEDERAL ie., the UNITED STATES/Constitution “for the UNITED STATES”, now in order to get through this verbage one should read Volume 1 of the United States Code which is inclusive of Titles 1-4 and Title 5 sections 101-5949, now Titles 1-4 is what is called the Organic Laws which means it is the foundation for everything and here in lies the truth of what is and what is not for everything comes from here. Now, one must pay close attention to the language and the dates of entry, this is very important for everything in there is the real law and who and what it applies too. As and example, in order for any part of the Northwest Ordinance to form a Constitution with borders it had to first have x amount of “free inhabitants” even if it had inhabitants and gypsies and later one can get into what the later two are. So by having x amounts of free inhabitants a bordered Constitution was set into play by establishing that specific Constitution with certain elements within it subject to aproval that conformed to what was to be in it, like a Declaration of Independence in each Constitution establishing its form of government and also ratification of the Articles of Confederation which is inclusive of the Constitution “for the United States” not “of the United States”. Once this was done the state was guaranteed a republican form of government and the “free inhabitants there in as defined in Article IV of the Articles of Confederation were intitled to “all the privileges and immunities of state citizens” which is not to be confused with the privileges and immunities clause of the 14 the amendment “of the United States Constitution” for those are not acceptable within the borders of Constitutionally bordered state that ratified the Articles of Confederation and adopted its own Constitution. Now, I realize that this may get a bit confusing, and I was at first glance but after one does the readings and a little research one will find out that in the majority of situations one is note on land “owned by the united States of America, unless one lives in a National Park.
      As for courts, well have fun, there are non they are all agency administrative hearings and are all legislative courts set by a congress that has been in recess since in inception for congressional members are just delegates while the rightfull state representatives is the Senate not congress, there is what is called the committee of ten,
      Here is another hint to what is in plain sight, George Washington deceived everyone, even though he was elected to be President of the united States of American he had two more years before he could qualify to be in that position so he took the Oral Oath as President “of the United States” not “for the United States”, further he was still a British subject, congress knew of it and went along with the scam of saying we have a constitution and became President of the United States as an employee with an employee oath of office as well as the congress who is also owned by the Senate as well as the supreme court, now to take this all into play it was a business plan, but the free inhabitants within each Constitutionaly bordered states such as Ohio 1803 have still an important part to play, why one may ask, for the symple reason there are no state citizens in any general assembly in any state only pepoel claiming to be U.S. citizens or citizens of the U.S. when in fact I do not think any or most if any live in a National Park on land owned by the United States of American, so they all must be dillusional for within the 1803 Ohio Constitution the only place left that fits that discription is Wayne National Forrest and that can be found within the Bureau of Land Management records as well as any Lands owned by the United States of America. So we have another question since the President of the United States and its Constitution only took the Oral Oath of Office as an employee, but was elected to be President of the united States of America, there seems to be that the executive position is not filled, so were is the commander and cheif, hym!, seems interesting would not one think so?

       
  3. Anon4fun

    January 8, 2013 at 9:49 PM

    If the Declaration is a treaty, and it seems to fit the definition, then your theory is probably sound and could lead to something useful.

    >>Someone reads what we’ve come to call the “Declaration of Independence” and sees that its proper name is “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” and leaps to the conclusion the proper name for this country must be the “united States of America”.<<

    Illogical. Does not compute. If one assumes, for some reason, that the country's proper name is in document's title, then this name would have to be "the thirteen united States of America" for the phrase "the thirteen" to make any sense there.

     
  4. Oldraskill

    January 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM

    Think about this, it say is quite clear ” The unanimous Declaration” of the thirteen united “States” of “America” the key word is “America” as States/Countries united in a Declaration or contract, any element on paper in which terms and conditions are made with signatures is a contract and treaties are contracts, draw from modern contract theory in developing canons of treaty. This would support that notion and suggests instead that courts draw from modern contract theory in developing canons of treaty interpretation.

    Blacks Law: definition of TREATY, In international law. An agreement between two or more independent states. Brande. An agreement, league, or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns, formally signed by commissioners properly authorized, and solemnly ratified by the several sovereigns or the supreme power of each state.

    Blacks Law: definition of CONTRACT, An agreement, upon sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular tiling. 2 Bl. Comm. 442; 2 Kent, Comm. 449. Justice v. Lang, 42 N. Y. 496, 1 Am. Rep. 576; Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 599, 24 L. Ed. 793; Canterberry v. Miller, 76 111. 355. A covenant or agreement between two or more persons, with a lawful consideration or cause. Jacob. A deliberate engagement between competent parties, upon a legal consideration, to do. or abstain from doing, some act. Wharton. A contract or agreement is either where a promise Is made on one side and assented to on the other; or where two or more persons enter into engagement with each other by a promise on either side. 2 Steph. Comm. 54. A contract is an agreement by which one person obligates himself to another to give, to do. or permit, or not to do. something expressed or implied by such agreement. Civ. Code I,a. art. 1761; Fislc v. Police Jury. 34 La. Ann. 45. A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing. Civ. Code Cal.
    It’s “America” the States united declare unanimously we are Independent from the King and England.

    This first part is the Preamble of the Treaty/Contract
    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.

    This second part is the Terms of the Treaty/Contract
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    The rest is the complant, the reason for the declaration.
    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    So, Adask your right both elements of a Treaty and a Contract are in the Declaration of Independence.

     
    • Huey Campbell

      January 9, 2013 at 6:35 AM

      Yes! Yes!, hear, hear!

       
  5. greg

    January 8, 2013 at 11:21 PM

    http://www.ccel.us/winning.chap7.html The new nation was conceived with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The fledgling nation in turn was born with the signing of the Constitution on September 17, 1787. These dates mark the period when our founding fathers realized their vision. The Constitution is the means to secure a specific objective expressed in the Declaration: “That to secure these [God-given] rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” The Constitution and its foundational document, the Declaration, cannot be separated.

     
  6. palani

    January 9, 2013 at 9:57 AM

    Greg
    Forget the constitution. The federal government was formed with the Articles of Confederation. Two problems with the Articles: 1) It was an insufficient contract to base bonds on (financial) and 2) It had no provisions for the federal government formed under it to obtain new territory. Territories are attached to municipalities and the Constitution formed such a municipality.

     
  7. Daniel

    January 9, 2013 at 10:14 AM

    I love your writing!

     
    • Adask

      January 9, 2013 at 11:15 AM

      I love your comments!

       
    • mike

      January 10, 2013 at 12:25 AM

      Plus Rep and ditto.

       
  8. Timmy

    January 9, 2013 at 4:17 PM

    I like your thinking as always, Al. But I disagree with this theory. I don’t think it’s a treaty b/c: it’s certainly not one with England (no bilateral agreement) and I don’t see any contract/agreement of terms between the 13 states. IE, if it was a treaty, either england would have to agree/sign it, or it would be between (among) the states themselves, and would not be addressed to England at all.

    I think it’s just a ‘declaration’, in the legal sense: (per Black’s):

    “The first of the pleadings on the part of the plaintiff in an action at law, being a formal and
    methodical specification of the facts and circumstances constituting his cause of action.”

    That seems to fit quite well; it’s like the Declaration is the states initial formal legal action as if in suit as plaintiff’s against the crown as defendant.

    For what it’s worth…

     
  9. Buck Sexton

    January 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM

    A couple of ideas: Is the treaty a contract with only the states that were in existence at the time, or would the newer states have excepted the contract with the several states when statehood was granted?

    I think the treaty and contract are clearly just that, now that it is explained It is seems obvious. At the time it was drafted it was not necessary to have other writings clarifying its purpose ; it is plain english and presumed to be understood. Also regardless of its purpose, if it fits the criteria of contract, It is a contract by default.

    As for State v Territory Is it possible it is neither or both? What if it is a DBA (Doing Business As). Here in Montana the letterhead reads : THE GREAT STATE OF MONTANA.
    The law to incorporate varies slightly by each state but generally:
    Adask Gold Mining is allowed as a DBA, but it does NOT need to include the letters DBA. Because there is no ownership. It is him only and is a sole proprietorship. BUT if incorporating it can be singular or plural.

    ADASK’S GOLD MINING has a ownership by the ‘s and would need to be incorporated and needs the corporation designation in the title IE: INC. CO. LTD. or in full spelling.

    So the corporation ADASK’S (OR ADASK) GOLD MINING INC. Could as a corporate individual have a DBA THE GREAT STATE OF ADASK. (it could not have ADASK’S GREAT STATE for a DBA)

    Im wondering if the STATE OF MONTANA INC. is DBA: THE GREAT STATE OF MONTANA.

    But! if the entity and or State were a “territory” The two are acting in concert because the moneys are flowing freely between the two. The flow of moneys between a corporation and an officer is all that is needed to pierce the corporate vail in a law suit when the plaintiff wants to sue both. It seems logical to me, if the “Territory” of ORGON is working as an agent for The State of Oregon. (we know they are working for the state since they are funded by the state) the two entities are both sufferable.

    Another example: if ADASK MINING INC. is operating a dredge and it sucks a swimmers guts out and kills him. A law suit is filed against ADASK MINING INC. But the corporation has no money or assets but Alfred does. (he is worth millions). If the plaintiff can prove a free flow of money (paying INC bills with the personal account and or cash withdrawals from the corporation) both Alfred and the MINING INC could be sued together.

    My point in all this,maybe it wouldn’t matter if it is a state or territory, if there is no vail to separate one from the other.

    Also if a state is a corporation it wouldn’t have jurisdiction for prosecution it could only file a civil suit. (except i suppose it could punish an individual within its corporation) Maybe a municipal court judge is an administration law judge for the corporation.

     
    • PatriotOne

      January 15, 2013 at 2:07 PM

      “”Maybe a municipal court judge is an administration law judge for the corporation.””

      If this ^^^ statement is asked at the first instance of a ‘hearing’ how would the judge/magistrate answer? If the charges are The State of Florida v JON DOE —BUT— the charges are beginning in a MINICIPAL COURT is the burden placed upon the accused to prove that He is not a STATE or CITY or COUNTY or US employee?

      What I cannot comprehend is; how can the accused be expected to know the nature of the STATE and its ACTORS if the accused is not a STATE or ACTOR?

      Or; how should the accused go about preventing the “COURT” from presuming jurisdiction over the accused?

      Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations;

       
  10. TA

    January 10, 2013 at 12:12 AM

    Seems like if that was the intent, it wouldve been mrmorialized somewhere.

     
  11. Buck Sexton

    January 10, 2013 at 12:18 AM

    If the Declaration of Independence is all three, a Treaty, a Contract and Charter (aka Articles of Incorporation) It could be the several states were officers for the United States to incorporate the United States. Or the Declaration is that all states are a corporation. Or both.

    The interesting thing about a DBA is, it’s not required to be registered. So if a State assumes a DBA no records would be recorded, unless an entity (the state) chooses to register it.

    I have found that most banks have issues opening an account under the DBA if a person chooses to use the name only absent the DBA letters. But they will do it if they are shown the law. Larger banks usually have a person there that is aware of the DBA rule. They still use your SS#. unless you ask the IRS to give you a new TIN for your new DBA.

    So, im not just blowing smoke the unrecorded DBA is a real legal option. ( I would opt for a INC for my self though)

     
  12. Anon4fun

    January 10, 2013 at 3:04 AM

    The Declaration calls itself a pledge, which is a promise to perform. A mutual promise to perform is a contract. A contract between political entities that are “free and independent” in themselves, and therefore sovereign to each other, meets the definition of a treaty.

    “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States […] And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

     
    • Timmy

      January 10, 2013 at 8:54 AM

      Anon… interesting, but I don’t think it’s defining the declaration itself as a pledge. Actually, it’s clearly not. That closing language restates the opening– that it is a declaration. The pledge part is clearly stated to be simply the signers support of (and not the essence of) the Declaration as given in the document. Almost their version of a royal seal, if you will. Even if I’m reading that wrong, that pledge clause would be subordinate to what came before it in the document.

       
    • Anon4fun

      January 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM

      Timmy:

      Maybe, but the distinction you are making is immaterial as to whether the Declaration is a pledge. If the Declaration were essentially a recipe for baking a cake, and the signers attached a mutual pledge in support of it, then the Declaration would be both: a recipe and a pledge, and therefore a treaty.

       
      • Timmy

        January 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM

        Well, it seems like the Declaration is by the 13 States; the pledge is simply by the signers as individuals and people, since obviously the individual states did not have “iives” or “sacred honor” to pledge…

         
      • PatriotOne

        January 15, 2013 at 2:19 PM

        the “pledge” of the signers is not and cannot be a part of the declaration. The “pledge” is nothing more than a gang of men agreeing to defend and support the Declaration. That, without their support, the Declaration is without effect.

        Essentially the signers pledged their lives in the effort to enforce the Declaration upon the KING and any other ACTOR attempting to deny a mans right to his non-trespassing life.

        Any purpose contrary to the defense of life and its necessary elements would replace the KING with the men and their Declaration thereby making the men and their Declaration the new and equally despotic KING.

         
  13. Yartap

    January 10, 2013 at 7:06 PM

    On July 2nd, 1776, Richard Henry Lee wrote the first and real Declaration of Independence by resolution which was approved by Congress. It was titled, “A Declaration by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in General Congress assembled (Capital letters as given by said document.).” Further, congress required reasons to be added for the break from England, thus Jefferson’s “The unanimous Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America,” (Capital letters as given by said document.).

    Anon4fun’s reasoning using the later words of the Declaration of Independence seems to make his point, and shows independent States or Countries agreeing to a common cause, which can be construed as a treaty, as Alfred has theorized. If independent countries come together to contract, we call it a Treaty! The Declaration of Independence’s contract or treaty terms was that each colony was an independent state with such powers as other states (countries) of the world, and each States pledge to support each other to each State’s common cause of separation from England.

     
    • Timmy

      January 10, 2013 at 7:54 PM

      I’m pretty sure someone of Jefferson’s capacities would have labeled the document as a “treaty” if that is what they intended it to be. I follow Al’s reasoning that perhaps it functions de facto as a treaty… that’s certainly possible. I’m not convinced yet.

      When you pledge allegiance to the flag, for example, or to a group, are you making a treaty or agreement with the others who are also taking that pledge? No, you are vouching for what you will do personally. The pledge aspect relates to it being a group as the whole making the same commitment to a third party or entity. There is no special relationship created among the members of the group, beyond the specific commitments they state.

      This is just my half baked rumination… I’m certainly not being certain. Just trying to logically think this through.

       
      • Yartap

        January 10, 2013 at 8:10 PM

        Timmy,

        I see Jefferson’s Declaration as an attempt to also declare that the colonies are each independent States or Countries (Thus the capitalization of letters). The treaty was that each independent country would support each other in the common cause if need be against England.

        My State or Country came into existence on July 4th, 1776. It can also be argued that my State and Country came out of existence with the acceptance of the Constitution. Further, It cannot be argued that Richard Henry Lee’s Declaration created “One Country,” The United States of American, because of the creation of the Articles of Confederation which should be construed as a treaty or agreement also.

         
    • Yartap

      January 10, 2013 at 7:55 PM

      Can I eat my Snickers, now?

       
      • Timmy

        January 10, 2013 at 8:42 PM

        As long as you drink some diet coke along with it. Ha. You do state the case more clearly than Anon did, at least to my reading. As I said, I’ll allow for the possibility. Might be interesting to see if there are any historical references to the treaty aspect… any geeks up for that?

         
      • Yartap

        January 10, 2013 at 9:35 PM

        Timmy,

        I don’t think I’m a Geek – but who knows?

        Below is the text of Lee’s Resolution which was passed by Congress on July 2nd, 1776. It is very interesting as it refers to treaties. But please note the three parts of the resolution with my comments in ( ).

        “Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent States (each colony is a country),that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain (note G.B. is called a State) is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances (foreign Alliances are treaties; the State/Colony with other State/Colony). That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation (a call for the Articles of Confederation?).

        Is the treaty picture getting any clearer?

         
  14. Timmy

    January 10, 2013 at 9:12 PM

    The treaty concept is today moot, other than as a possible historical condition. Article I, section ten of the Constitution (that all the original 13 ratified) forbids the individual states from making any treaty or alliance. Even if the condition existed at the Declaration, it was superceded by adoption of the Constitution. Can I eat my almond butter now?

     
    • Timmy

      January 10, 2013 at 9:16 PM

      I know Al says the prior would still hold, but I think not. The individual states gave up the defined rights to the federal government that are defined in the Constitution. The only remainders would be those things specified or unnamed. Treaties are named… and delegated to the federal gov.

       
      • Yartap

        January 10, 2013 at 9:44 PM

        Timmy,

        I concur with your thought process of how the Constitution has created one country.

        But, Tim, correct me if I’m wrong, I have never read where the Resolution, Declaration nor the Articles have been removed or over ruled. Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but that is where we get Federal jurisdiction over treaties which still exist.

        Does that make sense?

         
  15. Anon4fun

    January 10, 2013 at 11:12 PM

    Timmy: >>Well, it seems like the Declaration is by the 13 States; the pledge is simply by the signers as individuals and people<>When you pledge allegiance to the flag, for example, or to a group, are you making a treaty or agreement with the others who are also taking that pledge?<<

    The Declaration is a mutual pledge where the parties are pledging to each other, more like a contract. Also, it is between political entities, not individual people. Totally different situation.

     
  16. Anon4fun

    January 10, 2013 at 11:26 PM

    [This replaces my comment stamped 11:12 PM which the site’s software chewed up.]

    Timmy: “Well, it seems like the Declaration is by the 13 States; the pledge is simply by the signers as individuals and people”

    In the first sentence of the same paragraph as the pledge, the signers refer to themselves as “Representatives of the united States of America.” A little further down, they “declare” a summary of the document’s main points “in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies.” Such language means the States were at least substantial parties to the mutual pledge at the end of the paragraph.

    It is not relevant that States do not have lives, fortunes and sacred honor, because these were part of a guarantee by those acting on behalf of the States, not the States themselves.

    “When you pledge allegiance to the flag, for example, or to a group, are you making a treaty or agreement with the others who are also taking that pledge?”

    The Declaration is a mutual pledge where the parties are pledging to each other, more like a contract. Also, it is between political entities, not individual people. Totally different situation.

     
  17. indio007

    January 11, 2013 at 4:28 AM

    I find it more interesting that the Constitution is “witnessed” by the signers.

    The Declaration of Independence only purports to break political ties.

     
  18. palani

    January 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM

    A declaration signed by multiple people can be considered to be the formation of a political society. A political society is the definition of ‘nation’.

    NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.

     
    • pop de adam

      January 14, 2013 at 7:53 AM

      Are Nations naturalized? Are nations natural? If we create a corporation is it necessarily incorporated? Incorporated into what? What does the term “natural individual” even mean?

      “Nations or states are independent bodies politic”, read this again and recognize that the word/term “Independant” is misapplied.

      “societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.”, Is this another way of creating subjagation? They will ultimately suggest anything that is or may be is only a result of their existance or that they are the only mechanism that can protect such. Welcome back to the plantation Luke, Boss is pleased.

      “societies of men united together”, If I am one of these men and disagree, logically we are no longer united, thus not a society?

      happy times

      -pop

       
      • palani

        January 14, 2013 at 8:34 AM

        “There are certainly cases, in which a citizen has an unquestionable right to renounce his country and go in quest of a settlement in some other part of the world. One case is when in his own country he cannot procure a subsistence. Another is when the society neglects to fulfill its obligations to the citizen. A third when the society would establish laws, on things TO WHICH THE ORIGINAL SOCIAL COMPACT CANNOT OBLIGE THE CITIZEN TO SUBMIT.”

        From ‘The Works of the Honourable James Wilson’

        Talbot vs Janson, 1795, 3 Dallas 133

         
      • Adask

        January 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM

        Our purported government can no longer provide adequate subsistence to many Americans who are both unemployed and running out of unemployment payments. That same government can no longer keep all of its “obligations” (pay its debts and promises) to the American people. And, clearly, our current gov-co is bound and determined to establish laws which violate the original and long-establish terms of our “original social compact”–including the God-given, unalienable Rights of our Declaration of Independence” and 2nd Amendment. Thus, the case excerpt you’ve provided might be very useful to anyone who wanted to move to another country in search of higher standards of liberty and living. But what about a man or woman who wants to both renounce “his government” but stay with The United States of America? Is it possible to renounce the government of “this state”–for exactly the reasons mentioned in Talbot vs. Jansen case and emigrate back to The State of Texas or The State of Oregon and, of course, to “The United States of America”?

         
      • palani

        January 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM

        “..what about a man or woman who wants to both renounce “his government” but stay with The United States of America? Is it possible to renounce the government of “this state”–for exactly the reasons mentioned in Talbot vs. Jansen case and emigrate back to The State of Texas or The State of Oregon and, of course, to “The United States of America”?”

        Plane jumping? How to be invisible? My policy is to use only gold or silver for tender of payment. The present government does not accept payment on those terms so it goes without saying we don’t spend much time negotiating with each other. They cannot see me and I cannot do business with them. And it is not that I value gold or silver so highly but rather one method by which contracts are established is by specific performance. I recognize a restriction (art 1 sec 10) and perform accordingly while the present government chooses to ignore the same restriction.

         
  19. pop de adam

    January 13, 2013 at 9:29 AM

    Suppose that like all legal fictions, things such as declarations, constitutions and treaties were just fictions themselves. They are entirely manufactured, are only fact and evidence that some group of people chose to put pen to paper and then sign or witness the very same contrived fiction. What if when confronted with someone attempting to hold you to some part of one of these documents you get them to divulge that they are referencing one these documents by the documents’ popular name and then proceed with a straight face to ask of them: “You mean that paper with some writings upon it, how is this relevant?” I know this seems as if this question is treading in the area of “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”, however I am not asking to make an “excuse” and are also showing that their “law ” itself is ignorant of anything. Perhaps when we are told we are making frivolous arguments, it is only because a frivolous argument can only be made after a frivolous statement or assertion has been made. If my argument is frivolous that might be because the entire showing was frivolous, it would seem if it is so, a line could be crossed quite easily into what is known as fraud.

    -pop

     
    • PatriotOne

      January 13, 2013 at 12:57 PM

      “”Perhaps when we are told we are making frivolous arguments, it is only because a frivolous argument can only be made after a frivolous statement or assertion has been made.””

      http://marcstevens.net/cos/cos20120302.html

      [audio src="http://marcstevens.net/NSPmedia/Audio/2012-03-02_CoS_IRS_Policy_24k.mp3" /]

      I post the above links as evidence in support of the quote above the links. I do realize that the Declaration or Constitution is not referenced by the AGENT as an authority, the AGENT goes so far as to refuse to reference any regulation or law as an authority to impose a POLICY.

      The conversation exposes the fact that GovCo or IRS fails to recognize any bona fide authority thereby shifting all validation of their actions upon a JUDGE at some possible furure date if any. The IRS seizing the life of a man eternally or until a JUDGE somehow gets caught up into the action.

       
      • Adask

        January 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM

        I suspect that most of the arguments that are deemed “frivolous” are thereby dismissed, not be because of the faulty substance of the argument, but rather because of the standing or venue of the person making the argument. For example, if you made an argument that was completely lawful in the venue of a State of the Union, that argument might be deemed “frivolous” if made from within the venue of a territory. Similarly, if you made an argument that was completely lawful for a man, if you made that argument in the capacity of a “taxpayer,” that argument might be deemed “frivolous”.

        If my suspicions were roughly correct, then if you made any unwitting error (like using a Zip Code or perhaps failing to deny that you’re a “taxpayer”), you might make brilliant constitutional arguments that would nevertheless be dismissed as “frivolous” because you arguments don’t work in territories or can’t be made by “taxpayers”.

         
      • PatriotOne

        January 13, 2013 at 10:06 PM

        BUT; if the accused is seeking ‘council and rights sua sponta’ should not the judge disclose the State or Territory upon which jurisdiction resides AND how that jurisdiction applies upon the accused…

        AND how the man wearing the JUDGE costume or mask is granted ability to impose any penalty…

        that is to say; can a man acting as judge put a bullet into another man without trespassing upon the man?

        one could say that a victim of rape is allowed to kill the rapist but is a stranger or judge allowed to kill the rapist on behalf of the victim, with or without the permission of the victim?

        how can a man exercize a LAW that allows a man to perform a thing which the man can not perform as a right?

         
      • PatriotOne

        January 13, 2013 at 10:20 PM

        is Cynthia Chase, a legislator for New Hampshire, legislating for the State of New Hampshire or for the territory New Hampshire?

        A Bill of Particulars should quiet the question…

         
      • pop de adam

        January 14, 2013 at 8:03 AM

        “The conversation exposes the fact that GovCo or IRS fails to recognize any bona fide authority thereby shifting all validation of their actions upon a JUDGE at some possible furure date if any.”

        Remember they also like to withdraw or dismiss any challenges before they ripen, there by denying any future challenges, denying any future authority…

        “THIS CASE IS NOT TO BE CITED OR PUBLISHED” if someone found a case that might aid in their defense prefixed with the above quotation would this someone not suspect they were being railroaded.

         
  20. Anon4fun

    January 14, 2013 at 1:32 PM

    pop de adam: >>”societies of men united together”, If I am one of these men and disagree, logically we are no longer united, thus not a society?<<

    It's not so easy. The society remains, just without you being a part of it. This is why phrases like "removed from society" are applied to destructive elements which a "society of men united together" with a functioning immune system and a future eliminates from its midst. The same principle applies in business, team sports, and many other areas in addition to politics.

     
  21. Anon4fun

    January 15, 2013 at 3:40 PM

    PatriotOne: >>The “pledge” is nothing more than a gang of men agreeing to defend and support the Declaration.<<

    The actual text contradicts this. While the pledgers in support of the Declaration may have been "a gang of men" according to some, e.g. George III, they were certainly not "nothing more than" this.

    The pledgers were also "Representatives of the united States of America" acting "in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies".

    This is what they themselves, in the same paragraph as the pledge, tell us. And credibly so, since records remain whereby the States they claim to represent sent them as delegates.

     
  22. PatriotOne

    January 15, 2013 at 5:04 PM

    I dissagree A4f,

    “”…they were certainly not “nothing more than” this.”” “”The pledgers were also “Representatives of the united States of America” acting “in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies”.””

    by Authority of the good People? Did the founders submit AFFIDAVIT or POWER OF ATTORNEY recieved from good People granting authority to the founders to pledge-propose-surrender-assume—— anything or any thing?

    the founders might have presumed to represent other men and women but they had no authority over other men and women, other than the authority presumed to exist by any despot or king or God.

     
  23. SweaterCups40

    February 15, 2013 at 3:23 AM

    palani,
    @ > ….reasons mentioned in Talbot vs. Jansen case

    Are the “reasons” dicta,or dictum? This is one of many things I am trying to understand. I know what “reversed & affirmed” means, but sometimes I see something a court says that clears up certain matters. BUT,is it dicta or dictum. Don’t say it’s their “law-speak.” That will not help.

     
  24. Danny

    April 4, 2013 at 8:14 PM

    Doesnt the Declaration of Indepenence apply to Article 4.2 The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.? Being that the DOI was created prior to the Constitution, between 13 several states, It would seem that that document is a treaty. I have not ever found that the DOI was repealed by the Constitution of the U.S.

     
    • Adask

      April 4, 2013 at 8:57 PM

      The DOI (A.D. 1776) created the States and established the principles under which those States would exist. The Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781) created a perpetual Union of those States. The NW Ordinance (A.D. 1787) created the territories. The Constitution (A.D. 1788) created a national government to serve the States of the Union. Insofar as any article of the Constitution refers to “State” or “States,” it must be referring to a State created by the DOI and operating under the DOI’s principles.

      The DOI, Articles of Confederation, and NW Ordinance were never repealed and–accepting some subsequent amendments to the Articles by the Constitution–still comprise “The Organic Law of The United States of America“. The DOI is, to this day, as much the law as the Constitution.

       
  25. JohnTWB

    June 19, 2013 at 5:25 AM

    Yes. America’s Declaration of Independence is a treaty among the thirteen states: as authorized by Congress on July 4, 1776 and subsequently ratified by each of the thirteen states during the interval July-November 1776. New York was the first state to ratify, on July 9th; North Carolina was the 13th to do so, on November 13. On January 18, 1777, Congress authorized the publication of
    “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”; the end result was the “Goddard Broadside”, printed at Baltimore on January 31, 1777 and thereafter an original, authenticated, copy was distributed to the governor of each state.

    Reference: JOHN ADAMS’ LETTER TO JOHN TAYLOR of Caroline (April 12, 1824)

    “… That work [of 1787-88] was written under the old confederation, and had no relation at all to the General Government. It respected only a State Government, and particularly the Constitution of Massachusetts, and others that resembled it, as against Mr. Turgot, who had censured them all. There is but one allusion to the General Government in the whole work; in that, I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body, but a diplomatic body, a collection of ambassadors from thirteen sovereign States. A consolidated government was never alluded to, or proposed, or recommended in any part of the work; nor indeed, in any moment of my life, did I ever approve of a consolidated government, or would I have given my vote for it.”

    [Note: In 1814, John Taylor of Caroline (Virginia) published his book, An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States, which contained a running commentary on John Adams’ A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88). It was Adams’ view that Taylor had misconceived or not properly comprehended the main thesis of A Defence. Hence this letter represents a part of Adams’ second look at A Defence and in addition a rejoinder to Taylor’s strictures.]

     
  26. Ben

    January 16, 2014 at 9:42 PM

    Confusing?

     
  27. JohnTWB

    February 8, 2014 at 6:42 AM

    DUNLAP & GODDARD JULY 4, 1776 BROADSIDES: THE ‘TWO JAKES’ OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

    In less than a generation after the event, the Two Jakes even confused members of the 1776 Declaration committee: viz., John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Tom Jefferson, thanks to the report of the wrong Jake in the officially printed Journal of Congress for July 4, 1776. First misreported in the official publication of the journal in 1777, and still misreported, without explanation, until the present day.

    JAKE ONE

    “In Congress, July 4, 1776 … A DECLARATION By the Representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled”

    Above title, per the DUNLAP broadside, when issued at Philadelphia, 5 July 1776, per order of the Congress dated 4 July 1776, as 12 of 13 delegations so adopted the text that day. This broadside reports as signed by president Hancock, attested by secretary Thomson; BUT, no other names printed.

    JAKE TWO

    “In Congress, July 4, 1776 … The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”

    Above title, per the GODDARD broadside, when issued at Baltimore, 1 Feb 1777, per order of the Congress dated 18 January 1777, as 13 unanimously ratified States (executed variously on 13 dates between 9 July 1776 and 13 November 1776. This broadside reports as signed by president Hancock; attested by secretary Thomson; AND, also signed by 54 delegates to Congress. [The 55th delegate, Thomas McKean, signed only years later].

    SAY WHAT?

    Please refer to the officially printed Journals of the Continental Congress, specifically, the volume for 1776, the entry for July 4th, wherein one finds featured, without explanation, the text of the 1777 GODDARD broadside, that’s Jake Two. As if the 1776 DUNLAP broadside, that’s Jake One, never existed. Thus far, 238 years since, the Library of Congress has yet to go on record to explain this surreptitious switch of the two broadsides in preparation of the 1777 first edition of the Journal of Congress for 1776; Jake Two switched for Jake One, and thus, among the proceedings of July 4, 1776, in said entry recording the adoption of the text of the officially so-called Declaration of Independence, one finds the switch, the misreported title, and delegates’ signatures in addition to Hancock and Thomson..

    Reference:

    The Mellen Chamberlain essay the Library of Congress doesn’t want the public to read:

    “The Authentication of the Declaration of Independence” (1885)
    Reprinted in “John Adams, the Statesman, with Other Essays and Addresses” (1898)

    Mellen Chamberlain (4 June 1821, Pembroke, NH – 25 June 1900, Chelsea, MA) was a United States lawyer, librarian and historian. He was ‘the Librarian’ of the Boston Public Library for over a decade.

     
    • thomas russo

      February 8, 2014 at 2:14 PM

      Declaration of Independence is a requirement to be had in every part of the Northwest Territory in Title 3 of Volume 1 United States Code which includes Titles 1-4 as well as Title 5, for when there are X amount of free inhabitants which is in Title 2 of Titles 1-4, want to establish a Constitution with borders must have within said Constitution a Declaration of Independence such as the 1803 Ohio Constitution which as a may add is in force and has nothing to do with the 1851 OHIO CONSTITUTION the so called STATE. Now, every state that “Ratified” the Articles of Confederation and established its Constitutional borders is a part of the “Perpetual Union”, not the Constitution “of the United States” in Title 4 of TItles 1-4. So read it on your own, its published every six years as Volume 1 United States Code inclusive of Titles 1-4 (Organic Laws) and Title 5 sections 101-5949 (for employees) and pay attention to the language and dates of entry in Titles 1-4, its on you. Hint!, Title 2 of Titles 1-4 at Article IV, all free inhabitants are intitled to all privileges and immunities of state citizen, the later is the established bordered Constitution 1803 as an example not the 1851. Check it out.

       
  28. NellieAldrich Rockfell

    July 14, 2015 at 9:31 PM

    Nice article and confusing obviously even to the Supreme Court. Another theory I’ve always heard goes something like this… So why do we submit to a Federal Kingdom as if we were Colonies again? I digress, on July 4th 1776 the States hold all the power. After all up until that moment they were just colonies, the Federal Government has been put into a Box, it’s powers were defined. The Box is, War, Peace, and all foreign commerce, as written in the Declaration of Independence, in other words just external things or Foreign, everything else is reserved for the States. So where does the Federal government get all this other power that they have and use, perhaps they steal it from the States. So if you hold these to be truths, the Federal government is stealing, therefore not to be obeyed, that kind of shows you the country was usurped long ago, the rest is total indoctrination and PR. So in summation, the federal government has no internal authority what so ever, and all that they tell you is one big lie, one after the other. The Federal Government mostly steals its power from the States. They are not buying this authority, the feds are extorting it through improper taxation. So the Feds extort the power by using the States own money.

    A little addition to the theory; As far as the United States goes, it was the States that separated from Great Britain first, “we are independent from Great Britain”. Then “We have already formed the line against Great Britain’s occupation for over 2 years now”. Then “we will form a confederation to protect the liberty and Independence we will win”. 2 days later, the States made the declaration of Independence. Then after that declaration, we created the 3 branches of government, in the Articles of Confederation. So in order to make the Constitution, first they dissolved the Federal Government, because it was tiny and did not function properly. The States are the Party to the Contract, and the Federal government was just the product of the States. The contract had nothing to do with the People, the Contract was ratified by State Representatives, nobody voted on it. The federal government repeat is the product of the States agreement, the Federal government was never a Party to anything. To prove it is the States and not the government that holds the power, the word united States of America you’ll notice the word united is not Capitalized. (Discussed in this Article above.) Within the document the Representatives are doing it by the authority of the People of the Colonies, they declared that they were FREE and Independent STATES, under the Declaration of Independence.

    If I’m not mistaken it really doesn’t sound all that much different than what I read in this article up until the point and including the “Declaration of Independence,” and perhaps the “Articles of Confederation.” Am I confused??

     

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