21 U.S.C. § 321(a)(1): Definition of the word “State”

23 Apr

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

Title 21 of the United States Code (USC) deals with “Food and Drugs”—and principally government the U.S. Food & Drug laws and F.D.A..   Section 321 (21 U.S.C. § 321) is entitled “Definitions; generally” and provides some of the primary definitions used in Title 21.

21 U.S.C. § 321 is of special importance to me because it was there that I first realized that the government food and drug laws are all based on definitions that presume that you and I to be “animals” rather than “men made in God’s image and given dominion over animals” (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and “men endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (as per the “Declaration of Independence”).  As “animals” we have no significant rights that the government is bound to recognize.  Government wants us defined as “animals” in order to render us more “manageable” by the courts and police state.

The government’s presumption that we’re only animals is evidence of genocide, treason, and spiritual warfare being committed against the American people by our own government.

Government’s predilection to degrade us to the status of “animals” isn’t a recent phenomenon.  The earliest instance I’ve been able to find is Section Six (definitions) of the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act which defined both food and drugs based on the presumption that the American people are mere animals.  The government has engaged in these acts of genocide for over a century.

So far as I know, I may be the first layman to have read the “man or other animals” (MOOA) definitions in over a century and realized what they meant on a spiritual basis.

•  But, there’s more to 21 U.S.C. § 321 than insight into how our government has sought to degrade us into “animals”.  There are also subsections that can help us understand the meaning of “state” and “human,” etc..

What follows is subsection (a) of 21 U.S.C. § 321 that defines “State”.  This definition offers valuable insight into the difference between States of the Union (“The United States of America”) and the territorial/administrative “States of the United States”.

This article on subsection (a) is the first in a series of articles that attempt to dissect some of the definitions in 21 U.S.C. § 321.  I’m not arguing that my analyses are God’s truth.  I’m simply presenting my analysis du juor.

You can find a complete and pristine copy of 21 U.S.C. § 321 at



21 U.S.C. § 321 : US Code – Section 321: Definitions; generally

“For the purposes of this chapter –


(1) The term “State“, except as used in the last sentence of section 372(a) of this title, means any State or Territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”


The Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781 created/constituted a confederation and “perpetual Union” named “The United States of America”.  That Union is “perpetual”.  It’s still here.  That Union consists only of States of the Union—it does not include any territories of the United States, or districts like Washington DC.

The Constitution of the United States (ratified and established by the people in A.D. 1788) was intended to “form a more perfect Union”.  That Union was the perpetual Union created by the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution created a new entity called the “United States”.  The “United States” and “The United States of America” appear to be two separate and distinct “jurisdictions”.  Washington DC and the territories like Puerto Rico, TX, IL and NY are part of the “United States”—but they are not included within “The United States of America” because that entity/jurisdiction includes only States of the Union.


•  When we read the definition of “State” at21 U.S.C. § 321(a)(1), we see that whatever kind of “State” they’re defining, it’s not a “State of the Union” (“The United States of America”) because the definition includes entities like the “District of Columbia” and Puerto Rico and “Territory of the United States”.  These territories and districts are completely different from the States of the Union found in the Articles of Confederation. These “States of the United States” are territorial or administrative in nature and do not secure the rights that are guaranteed within States of the Union.

Note that I read the phrase “State or Territory of the United States” to mean “State [of the United States] or Territory of the United States”.   These “State[s] are not “States of the Union” (of “The United States of America”).

99.9% of Americans presume that if I say “Texas,” “TX,” “STATE OF TEXAS” and “The State of Texas” I’m talking about the same place/venue/jurisdiction.   I not only disagree with that presumption, I regard it as a (perhaps, the) principal lie by means of which we are deceived into accepting non-constitutional government and the police state as lawful within the current “states”.

I believe that a State of the Union (State of The United States of America) is not a “State of the United States”.  I believe these are two different and mutually exclusive jurisdictions or political “planes”.  You can be in “Texas” or you can be within “The State of Texas,” but you can’t be in both at the same time.  To be in “Texas” is to be in a “State or territory of the United States”.  To be within the borders of “The State of Texas” is to be within a State of the Union (State of The United States of America).

The “States of the United States” defined at 21 USC  § 321(a)(1) are the second venue, the territorial venue, the fictional venue wherein Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States (which grants the federal government only a few “limited powers” within the States of the Union) has little or no legal effect.

Why?  Because under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories and other properties of the United States such as States of the United States.  Within a “territory,” Congress are the sovereigns or aristocracy.  Within a “territory of the United States” or “State of the United States,” you are, at best, a subject and frequently deemed to be an “animal”.

Under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress has limited powers within the States of the Union (States of The United States of America).

Under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has virtually unlimited powers over the territories of the United States and over the “States of the United States”.

Within the States of The United States of America, you are a sovereign.

Within the “States of the United States” and “territories of the United States,” you’re a subject, animal, human resource or slave.


•  If you want to claim your God-given, unalienable Rights (as declared in the “Declaration of Independence”) in the capacity of a “man made in God’s image” (as per Genesis 1:26-28), I believe you’d better do whatever you can to rebut the presumption that you’re in a “state or territory of the United States” and do whatever you can to establish a claim that you’re living within a “State of The United States of America”—State of the Union like “The State of Texas” (not TX) or “The State of Illinois” (not IL), etc..

One very strong suspicion in this hypothesis is that Zip Codes only exist in the territories and/or states of the United States.  I don’t believe that there are any Zip Codes within the States of the Union (The United States of America).  If I’m right, your voluntary use of Zip Codes on your mail, your address, etc. is probably deemed evidence sufficient to justify the presumption that you have voluntarily left your State of the Union and/or “The United States of America” and voluntarily entered into a “State or territory of the United States.”  If you have voluntarily entered into a state or territory of the United States, you are (at best) a subject, and Congress is you sovereign.  As a subject you’ll enjoy no meaningful rights.


•  I believe that the laws and regulations that apply under Title 21 of the United State Code (and probably most of the other 50-odd Title of the USC) apply within the “United States” (created/constituted by the “Constitution of the United States” first ratified by the People in A.D. 1788) but do not apply within “The United States of America” (created/constituted by the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781).

If that distinction is true, and if you can grasp and argue that distinction effectively, you might be able to keep the feds off your back.


•  These fantastic allegations will make more sense to you if you read the Articles of Confederation and note that there’s no proviso for a “district” like Washington DC or a “territory” like Guam, the US Virgin Islands or even the “Territory of Ohio” (before it was admitted to the Union) or the “Territory of Alaska” (before it was admitted to the Union).

I speculate that authors of the Article of Confederation were so busy fighting the English and praying to God that they merely survive the conflict, that it never occurred to then that those 13 States might one day become 14 or even 50.  The Articles of Confederation made virtually no proviso for adding territories or States to the “perpetual Union”.

Much to their surprise, the thirteen States of The United States of America defeated the English—the world’s only super-power.   Emboldened by their extraordinary victory, I suspect that they began to think about defeating other governments, powers and Indian tribes and thereby adding more territory (and later States) to their Union.

But much to their surprise, there was virtually no proviso in the Articles of Confederation to add more territories or States of the Union.  Therefore, they began to deal with the problem of acquiring territories and then converting those territories into States of the Union in the Northwest Ordinance of A.D. 1787 and then the Constitution of the United States (first ratified by the people in A.D. 1788).

There’ve been other explanations offered to justify the Constitution as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation such as the need for a stronger, central taxing authority.  But I strongly suspect a primary reason, perhaps the primary reason, for establishing the Constitution was to provide the legal foundation for acquiring territories of the United States and then converting those territories into States of The United States of America.


•  An important point to understand is that the Constitution of the United States created a “United States” that was added to, but did not replace the confederation and perpetual Union called “The United States of America”.

Read the Preamble to the Constitution.  It declares that “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . do ordain and establish his Constitution for the United States of America.”

To make a “more perfect Union” presupposes that 1) some “Union” must have existed prior to the Constitution; and, 2) the Constitution would be ratified to make that preexisting Union even “more perfect”.  That “Union,” of course was The United States of America.  Thus, the Constitution did not replace that Union—it only “amended” it (in a sense) and made it “more perfect”.

I think the Union was primarily made “more perfect” by creating a legal procedure whereby territories could be acquired and later converted into States of the Union.


•  Note that that Union styled “The United States of America” was expressly declared to be “perpetual” in the Articles of Confederation and thus must exist to this day.  There is no proviso in the Articles of Confederation or in the Constitution to terminate or destroy the “perpetual Union styled ‘The United States of America.’”  Thus, while the “United States” is not perpetual and could theoretically cease to exist, “The United States of America” is perpetual and might exist forever.


•  Also, because the Founders failed to attach a specific title to the document that we’ve come to call the “Constitution of the United States,” some have read the last phrase in the Preamble (“do ordain and establish his Constitution for the United States of America.”) to indicate that the proper title for the document is the “Constitution for the United States of America”.

I disagree.

I think the Founders told us in the Preamble that the document they called the “Constitution” was written and ordained “for” the benefit of the preexisting, perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.   The phrase “Constitution for the United States of America” is not the title of a document—it’s a statement of the purpose of that document and the government it “constituted”:  to serve the best interests of preexisting Union called “The United States of America”.

A document that could be described as “the constitution of the The United States of America” would be the document that created or “constituted” the entity called “The United States of America”.   It’s undeniable that the document that first expressly created or constituted the entity called “The United States of America” was the “Articles of Confederation”.   Thus, the document we call the “Articles of Confederation” could be described as the constitution of The United States of America.

It follows that the document we call the “Constitution of the United States” created or constituted an entity other than “The United States of America”.   Thus, the allegation that the proper name for the “Constitution” ratified in A.D. 1788 is the “Constitution for the United States of America” must fail since “The United States of America” had already been created/constituted by the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781.


•  If this analysis is correct, it’s important.


Because if the “Constitution” (A.D. 1788) was ordained “for [the benefit of] the United States of America,” then there appears to be a trust relationship between the “United States” and “The United States of America”.  Within that trust relationship, the States of “The United States of America” are the apparent beneficiaries and the “United States” is the apparent fiduciary.  If so, the States of the Union (and perhaps the people therein) should be beneficiaries of the “Constitution of the United States”.   On the other hand, those who work for the federal government of the United States should be fiduciaries for the people of The United States of America.

If you were a citizen of one of the States of the Union, you would be a beneficiary of the “Declaration of Independence,” Articles of Confederation, and probably the Constitution of the United States.  But if you were a “citizen of the United States” (especially if you were presumed to inhabit a state or territory of the United States rather than a State of the Union), you might be presumed to be property of the United States in the same sense that animals, objects and slaves are property of the United States.  As a property of the United States, you would be subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.  Congress would be our sovereign.  You would be only a subject, animal or slave.


•  Next time, I’ll dig into the definition of “Territory” seen at 21 U.S.C. § 321(a)(2).  Then, as time and energy allow, I’ll proceed to the other definitions in 21 U.S.C. § 321.


Tags: , , ,

56 responses to “21 U.S.C. § 321(a)(1): Definition of the word “State”

  1. tubebuzzer

    April 23, 2014 at 10:35 PM

    Hi Al,

    I have learned much from your work, and lately have been fighting here in California in the issue of state citizenship, and ‘this state’ etc.

    Would you be open to a conversation privately, I think the blend of knowledge between us would be beneficial to many.

    Perhaps you would consider being a guest on a future podcast on the Agenda 31 show with myself and Todd Mcgreevy.

    Thank you


    Corey Eib Cell/text 949 891-4489

  2. Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris

    April 23, 2014 at 10:36 PM

    That should now help put this into proper perspective:

    From the U.S. Supreme Court:

    “All legislation is prima-facie territorial”
    American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213 U.S. 347 at 357-358

    The “United States” is a Corporation:
    “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …”
    Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

    SECTION 9301- 9342

    9307. (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

    UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 28, PART VI, CHAPTER 176, SUB CHAPTER A, Sec. 3002. Definitions (15)(A), p. 564 ”United States” means –
    (A) a Federal corporation;
    (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
    (C) an instrumentality of the United States

    From the U.S. Supreme Court:
    “All legislation is prima-facie territorial”
    American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213 U.S. 347 at 357-358

    “It is a well-established principle of law that all federal regulations applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears”
    [Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)]

    “The laws of Congress in respect to those matters[outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government”
    [Caha v. U.S. 152 U.S. 211 (1894)

    “There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears, [legislation] is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
    U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222

    It should now be clear WHERE and TO WHOM virtually ALL federal ‘law’ (statutes, codes and acts) actually apply, including the whole MOOA thing, obummercare, socialist security, etc.

    The same information occurs regularly throughout TITLE 26, as well, just well-concealed or buried in little obscure places.

    Great article Alfred!

    • Adask

      April 23, 2014 at 10:56 PM

      That’s a great collection of case cites in support of the “The State vs this state” hypothesis. Thanks.

      And thanks for the compliment.

  3. Toland

    April 23, 2014 at 10:53 PM

    Turns out the man-or-other-animals conspiracy to consider man an animal has been at work for a lot longer than the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. In fact, this agenda has been around from the get-go, as revealed by the following insider’s confession regarding the founding principles of the United States:

    “We believed, with them, that man was a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights, and with an innate sense of justice; and that he could be restrained from wrong and protected in right, by moderate powers, confided to persons of his own choice, and held to their duties by dependence on his own will.”

    — Thomas Jefferson, 1823

    • Henry

      April 23, 2014 at 11:30 PM


      In your quote, Jefferson says man – specifically, man endowed with natural rights (paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence) – is an “animal”.

      While this could mean Jefferson was part of a “man or other animals” conspiracy by the Founders, maybe it simply proves the existence of a definition of “animal” that includes man.

      Shouldn’t we prefer the simpler explanation?

      • JustaRegularPatriot

        April 24, 2014 at 1:02 AM


        Or perhaps a better word Jefferson could have used was “species”.

        I find it ironic and very surreal that I am trying to parse a Jefferson statement!!

      • Henry

        April 29, 2014 at 2:32 AM

        Maybe this is the definition used by Jefferson:

        7 U.S.C. §136 (d) The term “animal” means all vertebrate and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other mammals, birds, fish, and shellfish.

        Does anyone think the government’s use of this definition of “animal” infringes their 1st Amendment rights?


      April 24, 2014 at 9:49 AM

      To be honest, the idea that man (ADAM man) is an animal comes from Talmudic JEWS EDOM/SERPENT). That is most likely why we had that MOOA inserted into that “ACT”. Do not doubt that. They call us “GOYIM” and treat us like cattle.

      PROTOCOL No. 11:4 …”The GOYIM are a flock of sheep, and we are their wolves. And you know what happens when the wolves get hold of the flock? ….

      Ezekiel 34:6-10 My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them. Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock; Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

      GOD is not pleased with the “Shepherds” and HE will reject them >>>

      Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

      WE are true ISRAEL and they KNOW it. The proof is plain to see for those that will look.

      • Anthony Clifton

        April 25, 2014 at 5:32 AM

        mega ditto’s

        Bad Faith is Talmudic Judaism…

        Zephaniah 3 : 9 !!!! & Revelation 3: 9 !!!

        There were never any TALMUDIC “JEWS” in the Old Testament pretending to be “Israelites”….and no “Yiddish” speaking Khazar {Ashkenazim}

        a “Pure” language means essentially that the “people” aren’t repeating LIES
        from TALMUDVISION….24/7

        300 million Goyim sacrificed to the deity of the stool sculpture deity cult
        in just the last 100 years


        April 25, 2014 at 11:59 AM



        Anthony Clifton,

        You know the reasons I will allow your comments at edomsthorn . wordpress . com is because you speak in riddles and will not answer my questions as I try to understand just WHAT IS YOUR POINT! I am interested in what people have to say, but most will not have an adult conversation by participating in a debate where understanding can be achieved by the simple answer to a question.

        So, if you would like to enlighten me, to exactly what your point is, and what “sepharvaim” has to do with the ENEMY of ADAMS seed, or anything else I presented, feel free to do so. I would like to bring and maintain the focus on the source of the DISEASE, and away from the symptoms. You distract from my intent, with who knows what.

  4. californian

    April 24, 2014 at 12:25 AM

    Thank you for all your time and all you share. Words can’t come close to how much I appreciate you. Ken

    • Californian

      April 25, 2014 at 4:33 PM

      I am sorry, my comment was for Alfred. I was thanking Alfred for all his time and talents to share his thoughts. ken

      • Californian

        April 25, 2014 at 4:35 PM

        Next time I will be sure to say @Alfred for example. I was not endorsing any comments other than Mr. Adask.

  5. JustaRegularPatriot

    April 24, 2014 at 1:24 AM

    I was remiss and forgot to mention that I thoroughly enjoy and am eminently grateful for all that you do and the food for my grey matter that you provide Mr. Adask. I consider myself a lucky guy indeed to have been coming to your site and getting your email blasts for years now.

    Moreover, the information gleaned from the comments section is consistently invaluable! Like Mr. Gary Lee’s cogent dissection above of USC codes and SC decisions.

    So, if I understand you correctly Gary, Obummercare, etc. only apply to those in territories, but 99.9% of the population don’t understand what has been fostered upon them fraudulently and that they really don’t actually live (abide, reside, inhabit; you gotta be careful here) in a territory?

    But what about “unless a contrary intent appears”?? Why was that added? Why couldn’t they have just left it alone and not added that disclaimer(?)? Could that be a slippery slope leveraged against man made in God’s image should push come to shove? I truly don’t know but am totally wary of “government” defining things to their benefit.

  6. Michael

    April 24, 2014 at 2:15 AM

    Biologically, Man is an animal. It is Man’s spirit that distinguishes him from the other animals.

  7. cynthia

    April 24, 2014 at 7:21 AM

    if you dig deeper you will find that only a FEW of said ‘states’ or ‘States’ or ‘STATES’ in fact have corner stones or ‘metes and bounds’ as such are all based on what your particular ‘belief’ or self ‘conviction’ is… marks on a piece of paper do not a ‘genuine’ ‘boundary’ make, and a ‘sign post’ also is not a ‘valid boundary’ or ‘metes and bounds’ neither.

  8. Bobby G

    April 24, 2014 at 8:02 AM

    WHAT IF… a convicted murderer, waiting execution on death row, used the MOOA as a tool for a retrial, appealing that the state intends to use drugs only intended for animals, to kill him, and since he is not an “animal”, according to his (new found) religion of Christianity, he should not be subjected to any lethal “drug”. Could this tactic be used? Just a thought.

    • Adask

      April 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM

      I think you’re right. Same applies to Obamacare. There is no health insurance without drugs or medical devices–both of which are defined in terms of “man or other animals”. Obamacare is required for animals.

      Given that the Obamacare penalties are enforced by the IRS, the income tax is arguably being applied only for animals. If you can successfully argue that you’re a “man made in God’s image,” etc., you might be able to avoid paying income tax.

  9. Zeke Layman

    April 24, 2014 at 11:24 AM

    Just thinking about that Bond case where Justice Kennedy said, “…but the individual liberty secured by federalism is not simply derivative of the rights of the States”.

    This tells me that an accusatory pleading would be necessary to attach the Food and Drug code to an individual. Just because one lives in or out of “this state”, “a state”, the “State” , doesn’t mean any of those “State laws” apply to them.

  10. Adrian

    April 24, 2014 at 12:45 PM

    I can see that most of you are dazed and confused about our American reality.
    United States Of America is a slave colony,citizens are debt slaves.
    The creditors or the international bankers are the beneficiaries of the slave labor.
    Corp.US is the agent and massa for the creditors.

    America is a real geographical territory on Planet Earth.Some real people live here.
    US Codes are part of corporate contractual system.
    Some of you are good slaves and govern-ment lovers.

    You would be better off talking about guillotine and the Babilonian Talmudic Laws.

  11. Roger

    April 24, 2014 at 1:10 PM

    Edom’s Thorn,

    So when Thomas Jefferson said man is an animal, you think he got the idea from reading the Talmud?

    Has a copy of this book been found in his library?

    • Toland

      April 24, 2014 at 7:52 PM

      Roger, perhaps you’re missing the larger point.

      Thomas Jefferson: “We believed, with them, that man was a rational animal…”

      Jefferson wasn’t only speaking for himself when he said this. It wasn’t merely a personal philosophy he was revealing.

      Jefferson said “we”, meaning himself and his fellow founding fathers. He said “we”, in establishing the United States, considered man an ANIMAL.

      This means the man-or-other-animals conspiracy began long before the early 20th century.

      • cynthia

        June 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM

        In point of fact if you do the ‘deep digging’ one will find that it is quite ancient. Just one ‘hint’ is research the ‘sur name’ which was created by earlier king of england as a means to re-establish a tax on each man’s head “Wanted dead or alive” – ‘poll tax’ – thing back to possibly even before the globalistic Rome which was pre-England, for which one may find that even the ‘organic’ pre-Columbus ‘discovery’ – America was a part of the Roman Empire. Quite interesting.

    • Anthony Clifton

      April 25, 2014 at 5:50 AM

      See Jefferson’s eulogy of Washington, wherein he uses the word…

      Israel….and at that time the word did not mean {to Americans/Israelites} a

      Talmudic Terrorists cult compound in Palestine….

  12. palani

    April 25, 2014 at 7:36 AM

    This is the last sentence in 21 USC 372 that is not covered by the definition in 21 USC 321 of “state”.

    21 USC 372 (a)(4) For the purposes of this subsection, the term “United States” means the States and the District of Columbia.

    Of course “state” and “states” have completely different meanings. The first is singular while the second envisions a group consisting of more than one.

    The concept of referring to any entity as a plural or as a group is not valid. Here is a reference from Eirenarcha (a 16th century magistrates manual):

    Howsoever that were, the same king used (as I thinke) for the first 33. yeares of his reigne, to make his assignments and commissions to the Wardeins of the peace, not always severally into each shire, but sometimes jointly to sundry persons over sundrie shires: so I find a commission (2.E.3 part.2.patent indorso) made to William Roos and three others his companions, to be Wardeins of the peace, not onely in Lincolnshire, but also in three or foure of the other Counties thereunto next adjoining.

    This, though it might seeme to be warranted (after 18.E.3) upon the Construction of the word Counties, used plurally in the Statute, yet was it much contrarie to the mea-ning

    21 CAP 4

    Ning of the former lawes (made 1.E.3.cap.15 & 3.4.E.3.cap2) where the same word is read (Everie Countie) in the Singular number. And therefore the Parliament ( restored ___ proper sense of these lawes, saying: In everie Countie of England there shall be assigned for the safe keeping of the Peace, one Lord, and with him, 3. or 4. of the mightiest men in that countie. And afterward it addeth, They shall have power to heare & determine (at the kings suit) al maner of Felonies & trespasses, done in the same County.

    • cynthia

      June 19, 2014 at 3:36 PM

      If you note that “shire” is part of “shire-reef’ which over time was combined to create “sheriff” you may find that what many claim the “sheriff” is ‘above’ the ‘police’ – in point of fact the “original” sheriff’s role was both tax collection and enforcement of the lords, barons and kings dictates… NOT “peace keepers” for “the people” rather for the People, note that capital P means ‘rulers’ while the lower p are the “common men” and not necessarily the ‘free men’… different ‘class’ or ‘status’ – check the first and second “census” generation and you will see a column title “free man” – quite interesting.

  13. Henry

    April 25, 2014 at 2:26 PM

    Compare the definitions in 7 USC §2156:

    (g)(4) the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States;

    (g)(5) the term “animal” means any live bird, or any live dog or other mammal, except man;

  14. Henry

    April 25, 2014 at 2:43 PM

    7 U.S. Code § 8302

    (1) Animal

    The term “animal” means any member of the animal kingdom (except a human).

    (15) State

    The term “State” means any of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any territory or possession of the United States.

    (17) United States

    The term “United States” means all of the States.

    • EarlatOregon

      April 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM


      Man and Human are Not the same word,
      and do Not have the Same Definition.

      Different words have Different meanings.

      God Created Man.

      Humans evolved from Apes.

      Under the Theory/Lie known as Evolution,
      First there was Apes,
      then the first Human was born.

      Humans and Apes reproduce, Only, sexually,
      so that means the first Human only had Apes to mate with,
      Humans mating with Apes is Beastiality.

      If you want to tell me,
      your Relatives did Strange things to Monkeys,
      Who am I to Disagree?

      God created the People in My family.

      If you want to tell me,
      your Relatives did Strange things to Monkeys,
      Who am I to Disagree?

      Back to the Animal in law.

      • Roger

        April 25, 2014 at 6:18 PM


        Are you saying that 7 USC § 8302, in excluding “humans” under its definition of “animal”, does not also exclude “man”, because “human” and “man” are different?

        Do you interpret this to mean that, according to the U.S. Code, though a “human” is not an animal, a “man” is?

      • EarlatOregon

        April 26, 2014 at 1:32 PM


        Read it again.

        Man and Human are Not the same word,
        and do Not have the Same Definition.

        Different words have Different meanings,
        different definition.

        God created Man.
        Humans came from Apes.

        Which one came from Animals?

        the College and University Textbook “World History”
        written by Professors of Michigan University William Duiker and his brother,
        and used at Rogue Commun-ity College,
        a Government college in Jackson County, Oregon,
        (this book is used by Governments to Teach)
        (starting on page 3 and continuing on page 4)
        is written,

        ” …from southern Ape-man evolved humans.”

        so governments are teaching,
        the students,
        Humans came from Animals.


        which implies they are Animals.


        Law allows Animals to be Put to Death,
        with little reason,
        and certainly No Rights.

        This is one of the Reasons,
        God Given Rights to Man,
        and people are So important.

        There is a War of Words – Ideas -,

        that is why Reading the Bible is so important.

        the Media keeps spreading Lies,
        over and Over,
        until people start believing them.

        People desperately need the Words in the Bible,
        and the Holy spirit,
        to Protect them and Guide them,
        in this War of Words.

        Jesus is on a Rescue Mission,
        if you allow Him to Rescue,


      • UglyTruth

        April 28, 2014 at 12:09 AM

        “Humans evolved from Apes.”

        The word human is from Cicero’s homo humanus, which was originally used to distinguish Romans from other people.

    • cynthia

      June 19, 2014 at 3:43 PM

      encourage one to research implications of “human” ‘human being’ ‘res-i-dent’ – denting the res; citizen (military), civilian (Rome), person (corporate vs fiduciary TRUST), as well as various implications of “title” i.e. mister, misses, mam, esquire, etc. If you ‘dig deep’ you may find some interesting and disgusting contemplation. I have over time built a digital library from “sources of authority” that validate any ‘term’ other than man, including wo-man (man with wo) is in some capacity corrupted. My preference is either man\womb or womb-man – fully equal, just the %50 Scittish in me – father’s side 100% Scottish (chuckle) – loved Braveheart (spelling) as well as more possibly historically accurate “Robin Hood” and French “Three Musketeers” movies. They brin back the concept of not “mob rule” rather love and compassion for ALL men\womb – each respecting the other as equal.

  15. Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris

    April 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM

    more stuff from my collection:

    6017. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the state of California and includes [only] all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States
    17018. “State” includes the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States.
    [which don’t include the 50 sovereign states but do include federal areas within those states, ed]

    26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(10): State
    The term ”State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
    8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(36): State [naturalization]
    The term ”State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
    Sec. 110. Same; definitions
    (d) The term ”State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

    Resident. “Any person who occupies a dwelling within the State, has a present intent to remain within the State for a period of time, and manifests the genuineness of that intent by establishing an ongoing physical presence within the State together with indicia that his presence within the State is something other than merely transitory in nature. The word “resident” when used as a noun means a dweller, habitant or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less, duration; it signifies one having a residence, or one who resides or abides. Hanson v. P.A. Peterson Home Ass’n, 35 Ill.App2d 134, 182 N.E.2d 237, 240 [Underlines added]

    • palani

      April 27, 2014 at 6:17 PM


      The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to regulate militia. The right to bear arms is a right to FLAGS AND SEALS AND COATS OF ARMS. This right comes to us from the feudal period and these devices are regulated by a Heraldic College. Most people mistake the 2nd amendment right as a right to bear firearms. The right to bear firearms is a natural right that derives from your right to self-defense.

      Perhaps then according to title 4 the right to form a state involves the right to FLAGS AND SEALS. They want to abolish the 2nd amendment and they want to use needless senseless violence to do it when perhaps the true motive is to eliminate these three devices from the arsenal of the state (FLAGS, SEALS and COATS OF ARMS).

      • Gary Lee, [Russell]

        April 28, 2014 at 11:45 PM

        I’m thinking the more important part is WHERE “this state” actually exists, as Alfred often ponders….and I am not sure I have ever seen an argument wherein I believe for one second that the 2nd amendment is about coats of arms, as opposed to weapons to prevent tyranny or abuse of the powers of the Constitution, as it says in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. My point here was merely federal and State definitions for “this state”.

        I even have more, just for the fun of it:

        “There has been created a fictional “Federal State within a state”. See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwartz v. O’Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A.2d. 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440. (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.) This fictional “State” is identified by the use of two-letter abbreviations like “CA”, “AZ” and “TX”, as distinguished from the authorized abbreviations like “Calif.”, “Ariz.” and “Tex.”, etc. This fictional State also uses ZIP Codes which are within the municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress”
        This entire scheme was accomplished by passage of the “Buck Act”, (4 U.S.C.S. Secs. 105-113), to implement the application of the “Public Salary Tax Act” of 1939 to workers within the private sector. This subjects all private sector workers (who have a Social Security number) to all state and federal laws “within this State”, a “fictional Federal area” overlaying the land in California and in all other states in the Union. In California, this is established by California Form 590, Revenue and Taxation. All you have to do is to state that you live in California. This establishes that you do not live in a “Federal area” and that you are exempt from the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 and also from the California Income Tax for residents who live “in this State”.
        The following definition is used throughout the several states in the application of their municipal laws which require some form of contract for proper application. This definition is also included in all the codes of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New York:
        “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State … and includes all territories within such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.”
        This definition concurs with the “Buck Act” (supra) which states:
        “110(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.”
        “110(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.”

        Are we having fun yet? : )

      • palani

        April 29, 2014 at 6:05 AM

        @Gary Lee “the more important part is WHERE “this state” actually exists”
        YOU are the only state that exists and YOU get to define what your words mean and more importantly what contracts you choose to engage in or not to engage in as the case may be. May people fail to distinguish between the government and the state. The secretary of state is YOUR secretary. When was the last time you sent him a writ of Mandamus directing his day to day activity?

        “I am not sure I have ever seen an argument wherein I believe for one second that the 2nd amendment is about coats of arms”
        I prefer to stay with reason as I am not licensed to argue.

        “This entire scheme was accomplished by passage of the “Buck Act”,”
        As was pointed out on Adask’s blog and podcast the acts of Harry Truman on or about June 20th, AD1948 in passing a bill into public law while congress was adjourned was the event that ultimately changed the course of the ship of state.

      • cynthia

        June 19, 2014 at 3:46 PM

        I believe you are partially correct. Clearly the various :”red flag” news media push about ‘citizen gun abuse’ is in the interest of removing actual guns from the hands of “the people” (lower p) to have better ‘control’ – but also desire to remove the old “flags, seals, and coats of arms” to be replaced all with corporate logos and computer ‘square’ ‘bar codes’ (wry grin) – move all under the corporate umbrella – plutocracy (sigh)

  16. Adrian

    April 27, 2014 at 2:39 PM

    There are two kinds of beings: plants with chlorophyll and animals with hemoglobin.
    Man,person,people,City,State, country,resident,cityzen are political in nature.
    Politics is a body of rites and customs established by the human beings in organized communities.
    Human being is part of animals,a natural existence.

    • EarlatOregon

      April 29, 2014 at 4:55 PM

      the word ” man ” is Not political.
      neither is ” people ” .

      ” People ” is.
      (capital P)

      Citizen is .

      • cynthia

        June 19, 2014 at 3:49 PM

        well said (smile) – “devil in the technical details”
        my preference is to take from the Tree of Life and stand ‘under’ imprescriptible rights – not written by others, rather natural law – NOT to be confused with “Law of Nature” which is its exact opposite
        the preface to Vattel’s “Law of Nations” self expresses as being a “… corrupt form of natural law…”

  17. UglyTruth

    April 28, 2014 at 12:05 AM

    Territory is an aspect of empire.

    territory (n.)

    “Since -torium is a productive suffix only after verbal stems, the rise of terri-torium is unexplained” [Michiel de Vaan, “Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages”]. An alternative theory, somewhat supported by the vowels of the original Latin word, suggests derivation from terrere “to frighten” (see terrible); thus territorium would mean “a place from which people are warned off.”

  18. Peter

    April 28, 2014 at 10:29 AM

    Al, if it’s alright with you I had a bumper sticker made that says:

    Adask– “Man or Other Amimals”

    Just trying to get the word out.

    • Adask

      April 28, 2014 at 11:55 AM

      That’s fine with me. Thanks.

    • cynthia

      June 19, 2014 at 3:51 PM

      my preference is to boycott ALL that is GOOGLE – if folks only knew there are viable alternatives and how Google is in fact attempting to literally Own “life” man’s DNA – as well as other really nasty activities by its various franchises, affiliates, subsidiaries et al

  19. Gary Lee, [Russell]

    May 1, 2014 at 2:26 PM

    Palani,, ” YOU are the only state that exists and YOU get to define what your words mean and more importantly what contracts you choose to engage in or not to engage in as the case may be. May people fail to distinguish between the government and the state. The secretary of state is YOUR secretary. When was the last time you sent him a writ of Mandamus directing his day to day activity?”

    I thjink you are either missing the point, or messing with me! ; ) “this state” exists in a totally different venue than I do. “this state” exists in the same corporate world as the UNITED STATES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, etc.: federal territories. I am NOT there. I am however posting THEIR rules from THEIR codes and such, the only apply in THEIR venue (federal territories), not mine.

    As for the “secretary of state”, they work for the private corporation STATE OF CALIFORNIA, in this case, or the UNITED STATES, in the big picture, not for the de jure California Republic, swept under the carpet in 1879, in hopes no one would notice, so she ( in this case Debra Bowen) is NOT my secrretary, she is the private corporation STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S secretary, and that is in a different venue than where I am. I am NOT a federal citizen, I do NOT have and SSN, or ANY other form of GovCo identification or licenses.

    I am a sovereign, under international treaty (Treaty of Paris, c.1783), as my family has been on this continent (on the European side) since 1600 A.D., and quite a bit longer on the Cherokee side (maternal, of course), so I do not have any “public servants” in the current de facto GovCo or its subsidiaries (STATE OF CALIFORNIA: CA), COUNTY OF SONOMA, etc., and I haven’t seen a “secretary of state” for the de jure California Republic…

    Haven’t seen a court of common law, either wherein I could file a ‘writ of mandamus’, only courts of equity (private corporations that are subsidiaries of the corporation UNITED STATES or one of its “STATE” subsidiaries, that all exist in those federal territory venues, of which I have no part, so, “NO”, I haven’t filed any writs lately, as that is in a whole different ‘nation’, foreign to the several states of the Union styled The United States of America, c.1777 (hope I got the date right for the Articles of Confederation), which is the venue at which I exist.

    My research could be lacking, of course, and I am always open to new information… : )

    • palani

      May 1, 2014 at 4:40 PM

      @ Gary Lee

      You are the only state THAT EXISTS.

      Does that help you out?

      • cynthia

        June 19, 2014 at 3:55 PM

        Spot On! for myself – “Full merger of church\soul and spirit with state\heart and mind – in with and for living body temple – upon solid land with peace for all without division nor separation – lawful per natural law, in no capacity “legal” but rather lawful ‘in legal form’ by coercion, threat, and duress – lawful given name cynthia, neither “one who hunts” (HUNTER) nor “fish soup maker” (SHUPE) nor one who hunts those that make fish soup” (HUNTER-SHUPE)… much more in comprehensive “self identification” unto STATE secretary… which has garnered me and husband in law full “peace” with all local specific to “right to travel” – no more stalking, warrant-less detainment, et al

    • EarlatOregon

      May 2, 2014 at 1:49 PM

      If you want access to Common Law courts ask Roy Ben Shadler.

      He says he was able to get the Oregon not so supreme court,
      to change into their White Robes,
      and conduct court under the Common Law.

      • cynthia

        June 19, 2014 at 3:57 PM

        important to specify either local or English “Common Law” otherwise in most cases you will not be told “which” unless you specify or ask – VERY different between the two. My preference is natural law – lawful – to any “legal” contrived and manipulated “law form”.

  20. EarlatOregon

    May 2, 2014 at 1:50 PM

    Roy Ben Shadler is on American Voice Radio (AVR)
    at 3pm (pacific)
    on Mondays,

    Live call in show.

  21. #AceNewsGroup

    May 4, 2014 at 9:46 AM

    Reblogged this on Ace News Services 2014 and commented:

  22. EarlatOregon

    May 14, 2014 at 1:00 PM


    Sovereignty’s Promise:
    The State as Fiduciary
    (Oxford Constitutional Theory)

    Book Description
    Publised: Dec 8, 2011

    Political theory is traditionally concerned with
    the Justification and Limits
    of State power.

    It asks:
    Can states legitimately direct and Coerce Non-consenting subjects?

    If they can, what Limits, if any,
    Constrain sovereign power?

    Public law is concerned with the Justification and Limits of Judicial power.

    It asks:

    On what grounds
    can judges ‘read down’ or ‘read in’
    statutory language against the apparent intention of the legislature?

    What limits, if any,
    are appropriate to these exercises of judicial power?

    This book develops an original constitutional Theory of political authority
    that yields novel answers to both sets of questions.

    Fox-Decent argues that
    the state is a Fiduciary of its people,
    and that this fiduciary relationship
    grounds the state’s authority to announce and enforce law.

    The fiduciary state is conceived of
    as a public agent
    of necessity
    charged with guaranteeing a regime of secure and equal freedom.

    Whereas the social contract tradition
    struggles to ground authority on Consent,
    the fiduciary Theory
    explains authority with reference to
    the state’s
    fiduciary obligation
    to respect legal principles constitutive of the rule of law.

    This obligation arises from the state’s possession of
    irresistible public powers.

    The author begins with a discussion of Hobbes’s conception of legality
    and the problem of Discretionary power in Administrative law.

    Drawing on Kant,
    he sketches a theory of fiduciary relations,
    and develops the argument through three parts.

    Part I shows that it is possible
    for the state to stand in a public fiduciary relationship to its people
    through a discussion of Crown-Native fiduciary relations
    recognized by Canadian courts.

    Part II sets out the Theoretical underpinnings
    of the fiduciary theory of the state.

    Part III explores the implications of the fiduciary theory
    for Administrative law and Common law Constitutionalism.

    The final chapter situates the theory
    within a broader philosophical discussion
    of the rule of law.



    …it provides a clear discussion of the idea
    of fiduciary relationships and duties
    that is useful for, and should be largely accessible to,

    Matthew Lister, Ethics

    About the Author

    Evan Fox-Decent is Assistant Professor of the Faculty of Law,
    McGill University.

    He teaches and publishes in
    legal theory, administrative law,
    First Nations and the law,
    immigration law,
    the law of fiduciaries,
    and human rights.

    He has worked on human rights and democratic governance reform in Latin America since 1987.
    He has served with the UN Verification Mission in Guatemala (1996-99),
    and has consulted on behalf of numerous development and research agencies,
    as well as on behalf of legal institutions in Latin America,
    including the Supreme Court of Venezuela, the European Union,
    the World Bank, the International Development Bank, USAID,
    and Canada’s International Development Research Centre.



  23. EarlatOregon

    May 14, 2014 at 1:12 PM

    Fiduciary Law

    Fiduciary Law, examines
    the Structure, Principles, themes, and objectives of fiduciary law.

    which include corporate managers, money managers, Lawyers, and physicians among others,
    are entrusted with money or Power.

    Frankel explains how fiduciary law is designed to
    offer protection from Abuse of this method of Safekeeping.

    Fiduciary Law deals with fiduciaries in general,
    and identifies situations in which fiduciary law
    falls short of offering protection.

    Fiduciary Law analyzes fiduciary debates, and argues
    that greater preventive measures are required.

    She offers guidelines for determining the Boundaries and Substance of fiduciary law,
    and discusses how Failure to enforce fiduciary law
    can contribute to failing Financial and Economic systems.

    Frankel offers ideas and explanations
    for the courts, regulators, and legislatures,
    as well as the fiduciaries and Entrustors.

    She argues for strong legal protection against Abuse of Entrustment
    as a means of encouraging fiduciary services in society.

    Fiduciary Law can help lawyers and policy makers
    designing the future law and the Systems that it protects.



  24. Adrian

    May 15, 2014 at 1:01 PM

    The STATE is a corporation. ITS agents act as fiduciaries for the owners of the corp.
    You and I do not own that corp.STATE.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s