Territorial “states”?

03 Jun

Gangsters--within and without government--fight for territory. [courtesy Google Images]

Gangsters–within and without government–fight for territory.
[courtesy Google Images]

In my article “A Reader Wonders—Art. 1.10.1 vs. Art. 4.3.2”, I hypothesized that that loss of gold and silver coin in domestic circulation caused the governments of the States of the Union to become insolvent and non-functional. I speculated that, in the resulting governmental void, the national government passed emergency legislation to allow “territorial states” and/or “administrative districts” to supplant the insolvent governments of the States of the Union.

In the aftermath of that article, some readers have asked for statutory evidence of when those “territorial states” were created by law.

I don’t know where and when these hypothetical “territorial states” were created in law.  If the hypothesis is true, that information remains to be discovered and confirmed.

But if it were true that: 1) the governments of the States of the Union did not become legally insolvent until after both the gold- and silver-based currencies had been removed from domestic circulation; and 2) the last of the silver-based currencies disappeared between A.D. 1964 and A.D. 1968—then it would seem to follow that the governments of the States of the Union didn’t stop functioning until the early 1960s.  Therefore, the hypothetical territorial-state governments did not come to full power until sometime in the early 1960s (when, incidentally, the Viet Nam war was heating up).

This is not to say that the territorial “state” governments suddenly and instantly replaced the former State-of-the-Union governments at specific moment (kinda like flipping a light switch). If a system of territorial-state governments replaced the system of State-of-the-Union governments, the process was probably fairly slow, steady but not sufficiently dramatic to attract public attention. Thus, while the process of supplanting State-of-the-Union governments with territorial-governments must’ve been complete no later than A.D. 1968 (when paper dollars could no longer be redeemed with silver), the process might’ve slowly started as early as A.D. 1933 or even before that.

In other words, although I don’t know when the governments of the States of the Union ceased functioning on a constitutional basis, it couldn’t have been later than A.D. 1968.

This doesn’t mean that these territorial “states” were created in A.D. 1968. It means the governments of the States of the Union would’ve ceased to function no later than A.D. 1968, but might’ve ceased functioning in part or in whole some years earlier.

If the governments of the States of the Union became insolvent for lack of gold or silver money and therefore stopped functioning, the territorial-state governments would supplant them–probably under the guise of an “emergency“.

If my “conspiracy theory” were roughly correct, we could presume that The Powers That Be planned the loss of governments of the States of the Union, and prepared for that loss by creating the territorial “states” some years or even decades before they were really needed. If I had to bet, I’d say the creation of the territorial “states” occurred during the 35 year period between A.D. 1933 (when the gold coins were removed from domestic circulation by executive order of President Roosevelt under the guise of a banking emergency) and A.D. 1968—the last year that the government and/or Federal Reserve redeemed paper dollars with silver dollars.

(Incidentally, I’ve been told that the banking “emergency” of A.D. 1933 continues to this day. How can we have a 81-year long “emergency”?  We elect people to Congress, Senate and Presidency to deal with “emergencies”. I.e., when we have an “emergency” that disrupts our “state” or condition of “peace,” we expect Congress et al, to enact legislation to solve and eliminate that “emergency” and return the nation to a “state of peace”. We do not expect our government to maintain the “state of emergency” for, now, 81 years in order to exploit the American people and strip us of our rights and freedoms. But that’s what’s happened.)


•  In any case, on June 25th, A.D. 1948, Congress enacted a hoard of legislation under circumstances that some find mysterious and perhaps malicious. Part of that legislation included 28 USC 81-131 which lists the judicial districts of the  “states” and Washington DC.

For example, 28 USC 81 lists “Alabama”; 28 USC 124 lists “Texas”; and 28 USC 131 lists “Wyoming”.  Note that the names of these “states” is as I’ve written in quotes.

These names strike me as odd since I know from the federal Act of March 30, A.D. 1870, that the State of the Union that we casually refer as “Texas” was expressly readmitted to representation in Congress after the Civil War as a State of the Union under the proper name of “The State of Texas“. That name (“The State of Texas”) appears in quotes in the Act of March 30th, A.D. 1870.

So far as I know, to this day, Article 1.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Rule 15 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure refer to “The State of Texas“–also in quotes.  Article IV Section XV of The Constitution of The State of Texas of A.D. 1869, and Article V, Section 12 of The Constitution of The State of Texas of A.D. 1876, indicate that the proper name for the State of the Union that we casually refer to as “Texas” is “The State of Texas”.

I assume that the proper names of the other States of the Union follow the same format that I’ve seen used for “Texas”. If my assumption is correct, the proper name for the States of the Union that we casually refer to as “Alabama” or “Wyoming” would be “The State of Alabama” and “The State of Wyoming”.

If my assumptions are correct, why has Congress passed laws at 28 USC 81-131 that refer to “states” with names like “Alabama,” “Texas,” and “Wyoming” rather than their proper names of “The State of Alabama,” “The State of Texas” and “The State of Wyoming”?

Given that the “states” described at 28 USC 81-131 don’t appear to list the proper names of the each of the States of the Union, is this omission merely due to oversight or mistake?

Could it be that the efficiency of writing “Texas” rather than “The State of Texas” allows the shortened form (“Texas”) to carry the same legal significance and describe the same State of the Union properly known as “The State of Texas”?  Or is the law a matter of linguistic precision where you must say exactly what you mean, and if you faile to express yourself precisely you may lose your claim or case–even if you are in the right?  If efficiency or brevity were a legitimate goal in legalese and provided the rationale for using the shortened form (“Texas”) rather than “The State of Texas” in national laws, why do Texas codes to this day declare that “The style of all writs and criminal process shall be ‘The State of Texas’”?

Is it possible that the name “Texas” (as seen in 28 USC 124) is a name for a “territory of the United States” while the name “The State of Texas” is the proper name for a State of the Union (i.e., a “State of The United States of America“)?

I’m not arguing that the “states” named at 28 USC 81-131 are definitely the territorial-states rather than States of the Union.

I am arguing that the use of the seemingly shortened and improper names of “states” at 28 USC 81-131 could be evidence that the “states” listed at 28 USC 81-131 are something other than the States of the Union and therefore might be a list of the territorial “states”.

And, again, note the date when 28 USC 81-131 was first enacted: June 25th, A.D. 1948—about midway between the A.D. 1933 loss of gold coins from domestic circulation and the A.D. 1968 loss of silver.  The “creation” of these what may be “statutory states” would therefore be ready and waiting for use as “territorial states” when the silver coins were removed from circulation in the 1960s.

Incidentally, if I recall correctly, A.D. 1948 was the year that the “District Courts of the United States” (which I believe were Article III, judicial courts located within the States of the Union) were renamed to be, and/or replaced by the  “United States District Courts” (which I’m convinced are territorial and probably administrative courts.)  If my recollection is correct, it’s virtually certain that the original federal courts were renamed and/or replaced by territorial courts as part of the “hoard” of legislation passed on June 25th, A.D. 1948.

Thus, it strikes me as highly probable that the “territorial states” may have first come into existence on or about June 25th, A.D. 1948.  This does not mean that the governments of the States of the Union ceased to exist on that date.  It only means that the territorial-state governments may have been conceived on that date and did not fully supplant and then replace the governments of the States of the Union for another ten or fifteen years.

The previous analysis is almost purely hypothetical. I can’t yet argue that my conclusions are correct. But I am arguing that my conclusions are, so far, plausible.


• It occurs to me that one way we might be able to discover approximately when territorial-state governments replaced State-of-the-Union governments would be to search state archives for any state statutes that allowed the particular state and/or state government to transact its business with fiat dollars (FRNs) rather than gold and silver coin mandated by Article 1.10.1 of the Constitution of the United States.  If there were state statutes that allowed the use of FRNs, those statutes would probably correspond closely to the moment when the government of that State of the Union was “officially” supplanted by a territorial government.

If one of us found such statute at, say, Texas, and another found a similar statute at, say, Ohio, and a third found another similar statute at, say, California—and if all three state statutes were enacted at roughly the same time—then we’d have decent evidence of the time when the territorial state governments first started to function and were enabled to conduct business with FRNs.


Tags: , ,

31 responses to “Territorial “states”?

  1. Joseph LAmarca

    June 3, 2014 at 1:51 AM


    Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 06:41:14 +0000 To:

    • mrtideman

      June 3, 2014 at 8:20 AM

      Yes, I’ve read it in the past and today at: being that of gold and silver coins plus copper coins too, and the penalty for debasement of such being: death. So what’s your point? That the coins we have now subjects whoever to this penalty? Yes, IF this were the only law, but it’s not, as there is also the Coinage Act of 1965, plus see LBJ’s speech to Congress at: for these coins to circulate “together”, not replace the former. Every once in a while you can find silver quarters of the Coinage Act of 1792 in circulation, but not enough to pay your property taxes, that by Section 20 requires the public servants to keep their “public office” accounts in compliance with this regulation, but do they? “Show me the audit” of constitutional compliance ought to be the instruction to them in having to answer. Yes you may pay debased coins but that somehow they have to convert over from one to the other Act, and because not even the cent nowadays is completely copper, of it getting more difficult to accumulate such, but this rather than silver of even more difficult to obtain is what they have to do, of that’s a lot of Lincoln one cent 1982 and prior pennies. Every now and then you read about somebody paying their taxes in pennies. Are ALL the pennies accepted? The ones after 1982 ought not to be, as such are not in accordance with the Act. Here in New Hampshire the only Act we approved of is the former one back in 1794 in Chapter 28 of Vol. 6 at page 155. We never “consent”?ed to The Coinage Act of 1965. Thus for me to pay the latest bill for my 1.5-acre woodlot of $28.00 (billed twice a year) in not even nickels* (how did they get to be of such BEFORE the Coinage Act of 1965 to replace the half dimes of silver?) by offering what the law pre-scribes. I might even TRY to pay in some nickels* to see what happens. * See: = ” Nickel is the only element named after the devil. The name comes from the German word Kupfernickel, meaning “Old Nick’s copper,” “

  2. Roger

    June 3, 2014 at 4:16 AM

    Did the Congress make a semantic error in referring to the first United States notes, a fiat currency, as “lawful money” in 1862 (presumably before the territorial states existed)?

    “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue, on the credit of the United States, one hundred and fifty millions of dollars of United States notes, not bearing interest, payable to bearer, at the Treasury of the United States… such notes herein authorized shall be receivable in payment of all taxes, internal duties, excises, debts, and demands of every kind due to the United States, except duties on imports, and of all claims and demands against the United States of every kind whatsoever, except for interest upon bonds and notes, which shall be paid in coin, and shall also be lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except duties on imports and interest as aforesaid.”

    — Legal Tender Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 345

    • palani

      June 3, 2014 at 8:18 AM

      @ Roger “Did the Congress make a semantic error in referring to the first United States notes, a fiat currency, as “lawful money”

      Constitutional money is lawful money. Constitutional money has been held by a Kentucky court to be specie [4 Monr. 483]. Defining what other forms could be considered ‘lawful money’ is an exercise in logic. My opinion is that the only requisite for lawful money is that it not come with strings or obligations attached. If such is the case then early fiat money might have been considered lawful as there was no income tax reporting requirement. Later (present day) fiat money (aka FRNs) could also be considered lawful money if that is what you have been handed when you demand lawful money per 12 USC 411. Congress will not intentionally lie to you but they appear to have no qualms about failing to tell you the entire story.

      • Roger

        June 3, 2014 at 1:36 PM

        palani, thanks for the thoughtful comment.

        The use of “lawful money” in this legislation could be an important clue.

        I wonder what Al’s take is. Apparently he missed it.

      • EarlatOregon

        June 3, 2014 at 1:43 PM

        12 USC 152 Before congress abolished that law,

        “I deny the power of the general government
        to making paper money, or anything else a legal tender.”
        — Thomas Jefferson
        (need a Source for this quote)

        “The terms ‘lawful money’ and ‘lawful money of the United States’
        shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States.”
        (12 USC 152)

        The Forgotten History of Money

        This is the fascinating story of the efforts by certain of the Founding Fathers
        to prevent the economic distress we find all about us today.

        It is also a sad story on the basis that modern, “sophisticated” Americans
        have abandoned the corrective institutional mechanism that remains in place to this day.

        As you read it, think about a world with many fewer S&L,
        banking and political scandals and economic problems
        now considered the norm.

        “Blood running in the streets.
        Mobs of rioters and demonstrators threatening banks and legislatures.
        Looting of shop and home.
        Strikes and unemployment.
        Trade and distribution paralyzed.

        Shortages of food.

        Bankruptcies everywhere.
        Court dockets overloaded.
        Kidnappings for heavy ransom.
        Sexual perversion, drunkenness, lawlessness rampant.

        The wheels of government are clogged,
        and we are descending into the vale of confusion and darkness.

        No day was ever more clouded than the present.
        We are fast verging on anarchy and confusion.
        (George Washington in a 1786 letter to James Madison,
        describing the effects of fiat paper money inflation
        then ravaging America in the pre Constitutional period.)


        “The annihilation (of the paper money) was so complete
        that barber shops were papered in jest with the bills;
        and sailors, on returning from cruises, being paid off in bundles of this worthless money,
        had suits made of it, and with characteristic lightheartedness,
        turned their loss into frolic by parading through the streets in decayed finery
        which in its better days had passed for thousands of dollars.”
        (Contemporary writer, Breck, 1786)

        “Paper money polluted the equity of our laws,
        turned them into engines of oppression,
        corrupted the justice of our public administration,
        destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it,
        enervated the trade and husbandry,
        and the manufactures of our country,
        and went far to destroy the morality of out people.”

        (Peletiah Webster, 1786)


        At the drafting of the U.S.Constitution,
        there were many “Friends of Paper Money” present.
        On August 16, 1787, when the discussion arose on Article 1, Section 8,
        the proposed wording was this:
        “The Legislature of the United States shall have the power to…coin money…and emit bills of credit of the United States.”

        A hot argument ensued on the power to emit bills of credit,
        which is another way of saying “printing paper money”.

        Here are the actual words James Madison wrote
        describing the debate in his diary:

        “Mr.G.Morris moved to strike out *and emit bills of credit.*
        If the United States had credit, such bills would be unnecessary;
        if they had not, unjust and useless.

        Will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender?

        This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views.
        And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.

        Striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister
        which will do the good without the mischief.
        The monied interest will oppose the plan of the Government,
        if paper emissions be not prohibited.

        Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money,
        yet as he could not foresee all emergencies,
        we was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature
        [Legislature = Congress].

        (A friend to paper money)
        It was impolitic…to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money.

        thought this was a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money.
        The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made,
        were now fresh in the public mind
        and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America.

        By withholding the power from the new Government,
        more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost anything else…
        Give the Government credit, and other will offer.
        The power may do harm, never good.

        It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States
        to remove the possibility of paper money.

        This expedient can never succeed
        whilst its mischiefs are remembered,
        and as long as it can be resorted to,
        it will be a bar to other resources.

        thought the words, if not struck out,
        would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelation.

        had rather reject the whole plan
        than retain the three words *and emit bills*”.

        The motion for striking out carried.

        Historian George Bancroft later wrote:
        “James Madison left his testimony
        that *the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender,
        either for public or private debts, was cut off.*

        This is the interpretation of the clause,
        made at the time of its adoption by all the statesmen of that age,
        not open to dispute
        because too clear for argument,
        and never disputed
        so long as any one man who took part in framing the constitution remained alive.”

        (Bancroft – founder of the U.S.Naval Academy at Annapolis among other accomplishments – wrote a book on this very subject entitled
        “A Plea for the Constitution of the United States:
        Wounded in the House of Its Guardians.”

        During WWII, FDR – a serious friend of paper money –
        ostensibly to supply the war effort,
        ordered the printing plates for many historical books smelted.

        Bancroft’s book was among them.

        A photocopy of one of the remaining originals can be found here,M1 )

        (1721 1793)
        should be a name familiar to every American.

        As familiar as Washington, Madison, Jefferson and Adams.

        He is the only man to have signed all 4 documents
        surrounding the formation of the United States of America:
        The Continental Association of 1774,
        The Declaration of Independence,
        The Articles of Confederation
        and The United States Constitution.

        He was a Judge of the Superior Court
        in New Haven, Connecticut,
        serving that office with distinction from 1766 until 1788.

        He served as Treasurer of Yale University from 1765 to 1776.

        He was renouned for his high intelligence
        and unswerving honesty
        and was described by John Adams
        “as honest as an angel and as
        firm in the cause of American independence as Mount Atlas.”

        He served in the U.S.Senate from 1791 until his death in 1793.

        Why is Roger Sherman*s name unfamiliar?


        In 1751,
        Roger Sherman and his brother William sued James Battle
        for paying a debt to their shop in New Milford, Connecticut,
        in depreciating paper currency.

        Over a period of 15 months,
        Battle had charged “divers wares and merchandizes”
        amounting to 129 pounds of what Sherman assumed were
        pounds of Connecticut “Old Tenor”,
        a stable currency whose value were well preserved by taxation taking it out of circulation.

        But Battle assumed the debt was denominated in
        pounds of ever depreciating Rhode Island currency,
        tendered in same, and the Shermans took a beating in the payment
        and sued for recovery of loss by depreciation.

        The Shermans lost
        when Battle argued that he was merely following the accepted custom of the day.

        In 1752, Sherman wrote his book
        “A Caveat Against Injustice or An Inquiry
        into the Evils of a Fluctuating Medium of Exchange”
        indicting UNBACKED PAPER MONEY.

        It was this experience that Sherman brought to the Constitutional Convention
        and prompted him to rise on August 28,1787
        and propose new, more restrictive wording to Article 1,Section 10.

        The standing version under consideration was worded this way:

        “No state shall coin money;
        nor grant letters of marque and reprisal;
        nor enter into any Treaty, alliance, or confederation;
        nor grant any title of Nobility.”

        (From Madison’s Notes of the Convention)
        “Judge Sherman and Mr. Wilson moved to insert the words *coin money*
        the words *nor emit bills of credit,
        nor make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts*
        making these prohibitions absolute,
        instead of making the measures allowable with the consent of the Legislature of the U.S.
        Mr. Sherman thought this a FAVORABLE CRISIS FOR CRUSHING PAPER MONEY.

        If the consent of the Legislature could authorize emissions of it,
        the friends of paper money would make every exertion to get into the Legislature
        in order to license it.”

        Mr. Sherman*s and Mr. Wilson*s motion was quickly agreed to
        and became the supreme law of the land.

        Some additional quotations to ponder:

        “All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America
        arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation,
        nor from a want of honor or virtue
        so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation”
        (John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1787)

        “I deny the power of the general government to making paper money,
        or anything else, a legal tender.”
        (Thomas Jefferson)

        “You have been doubtless been informed, from time to time,
        of the happy progress of our affairs.
        The principal difficulties seem in great measure to have been surmounted.
        Our revenues have been considerably more productive than it was imagined they would be.
        I mention this to show the spirit of enterprise that prevails.”
        (George Washington in a letter to the Marquis de LaFayette, June 3, 1790
        AFTER the United States Constitution prohibited unbacked paper money
        at Article 1, Section 10)

        “Since the federal constitution has removed all danger of our having a paper tender,
        our trade is advanced fifty percent.
        Our monied people can trust their cash abroad,
        and have brought their coin into circulation.”
        (December 16, 1789 edition of The Pennsylvania

        “Our country, my dear sir, is fast progressing in its political importance and social happiness.” (George Washington in a letter to the Marquis de LaFayette, March 19, 1791)

        “The United States enjoys a sense of prosperity and tranquility under the new government
        that could hardly have been hoped for.”
        (George Washington in a letter to Catherine Macaulay Graham, July 19,1791)

        “Tranquility reigns among the people
        with that disposition towards the general government which is likely to preserve it.
        Our public credit stands on that high ground
        which three years ago
        would have been considered as a species of madness to have foretold.”
        (George Washington in a letter to David Humphreys, July 20, 1791)

        “It is apparent from the whole context of the Constitution
        as well as the times which gave birth to it,
        that it was the purpose of the Convention
        to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals.
        These were adopted by a permanent rule
        excluding the use of a perishable medium of exchange,
        such as certain agricultural commodities
        recognized by the statutes of some States as tender for debts,
        or the still more pernicious expedient of PAPER CURRENCY.”
        (Andrew Jackson, 8th Annual Message to Congress, December 5, 1836)


      • Henry

        June 3, 2014 at 1:56 PM

        Roger, dude…

        Alfred’s a busy guy with many important responsibilities. You can’t expect him to take notice of, much less use valuable time answering, every piddly question posted to his blog. So stop your complaining.

        Keep calm and ask your question again the next time the subject comes up.

      • Roger

        June 3, 2014 at 2:48 PM

        lol OK

  3. Danny Edwards

    June 3, 2014 at 4:54 AM

    Hello Al, Back in 2003, I, was sued in a “property tax” case. I found TRCP 117 (a) very interesting in how it talks about the Corporations and such, and I, made a issue about “service of process” to the clerk of court, she told me that under TRCP 117 (a) the attorney did not have to follow the other process. So I got into rule 117 (a), and found it to be quite different than rule 117. It appears to me that, that is where they do the flip to the all cap “THE STATE OF TEXAS” in their process. It appears that, if the defendant is NOT “in this state” (see 151.004 and #3 of rule 117(a) the attorney may ONLY be able to serve a “Corporation” under this rule, what do you think?

    Also I, have an issue going on now with the Texas Comptroller, in which I, have demanded she address her mail to me in the upper and lower case, and NOT use the TX and zip code, and any/all mail sent to the TX and zip code will be returned for “Improper Venue” she has gone silent thus far.


    • Adask

      June 3, 2014 at 5:12 AM

      I strongly suspect that the attorneys are only licensed to practice in the territory. I doubt that they can be licensed within a State of the Union.

      As you can tell from the Comptrollers delay in addressing you as you demand, there really is “something going on” in the The-State-vs-this-state venue issue. We may not yet correctly understand that venue distinction, but I have virtually no doubt that the distinction is real and significant.

      • pop de adam

        June 3, 2014 at 8:29 AM

        The strange thing about “attorneys” is that unlike doctors, dentists or drivers is their license to practice doesn’t come from the state it comes from their private bar association. So something really stinks when “unlicensed practice of law” appears in the statutes, especially when these attorneys often practice legalism in contrast to law. But I suppose that makes it all O.K.(pardon the sarcasm).


  4. Pat Fields

    June 3, 2014 at 5:54 AM

    Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2 provides unlimited Congressional authority, not only over territory belonging to the United States, but … property … as well. Since property is best described as ‘that which belongs to one, exclusive from all others in society’, it comprehends not only corporeal, but ephemeral things, such as rights, also.

    On March 4th of 1791, to obtain jurisdiction to enforce the ‘Whiskey Tax’, Washington requested and received of the Senate, license to establish unique ‘Districts’ over each State, for the purpose. Thereafter, these district jurisdictions served the lawful operations of all the federal administrative functionaries different tasks.

    So, this is the actual origin of what folks (mostly intuitively) perceive as ‘District States’.

    Now, it’s important to understand that though these districts do in fact exist, the inhabitants of the original, ordinary jurisdictions of the States over which they’re laid … The People … thereof, are unaffected until they swear an oath of fealty to the Constitution ‘of’ the United States of America. This became perfectly evident by procedures followed in ‘suppressing’ the Whiskey Rebels. As it was then, so it is still.

  5. commonlawman

    June 3, 2014 at 5:58 AM

    The Organic Act of 1871 established districts throughout all of DC, and is worded very strangely. It is very telling.

  6. cynthia

    June 3, 2014 at 8:16 AM

    You left out the fact that tobacco was a staple ‘money’ crop as was ‘hemp’ for many generations, same for coffee, and other crops – along the side of and without gold or silver. Same for hand made items such as furniture, foods such as pickling or jams, clothing, etc.

  7. Felipe

    June 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM

    Alfred, can a U.S.A. state of the union or the Federal Government force a white man to bear an identification card without his own voluntary initial request?

    • Adask

      June 3, 2014 at 10:43 AM

      Do you mean Can government FORCE a white man? Or do you mean, Can government LAWFULLY FORCE a white man?

      I presume you mean “lawfully,” but in today’s police state, the thugs in government can seemingly get away with “forcing” people to do almost anything–and shooting them, if they refuse to comply.

      I can’t give you an easy answer. The answer depends on the specific man being “forced” to produce ID. Has this man made any statements or provided any notice that he is of a status that may not be subject to producing state-issued ID? Has this individual produced some sort of ID of his own that explains and declares his unusual status? Is the individual sufficiently courageous, intelligent and articulate to explain his status to the officer? Or has he merely copied someone else’s paperwork without understanding what it means or how to argue it?

      If you wanted to contest the ID requirement, you might want to consider drafting your own private ID that specified who/what you are. They demand ID. Give them an ID–but not one issued by “this state”. But if you provide no ID, you’re asking for trouble–no matter what your verbal arguments may be.

      There’s no simple answer to your question. It’s a case-by-case issue.

      Is it POSSIBLE that “white man” or even a black or brown man could effectively argume that he has no duty to produce state-issued ID? I’d say the answer is Yes–it could happen. But that that doesn’t mean that everyone who protests producing an ID will succeed. Most who raise such protests had better plan on spending a night or two in the slammer.

      • Felipe

        June 3, 2014 at 12:57 PM


        The reason I asked the above question is simply because of intellectual curiosity. I was wondering since we are born as “tabula rasa”, the only way an ID is imposed on you is by those that wish to label you into their group, that is to say, you are you and you do not need ID to ID yourself to you, but other may need to be “assured” of who you may be…

        So, I was thinking that the ID the governments issues is like a membership card into their monopoly game that assures the other players of who you are and not who you may be…

        Kinda like a collective agreement to let you into the game by simply bearing the ID instrument… which opens the question, is the ID instrument a token that in itself validates its own precedence… or does the token and the flesh make it one “persona”?

        Yes, as you can see I am having trouble communicating the concept of what I am visualizing…

      • EarlatOregon

        June 3, 2014 at 1:54 PM


        Law for ID
        can be found in Hugo Grotius book
        “The Law of War and Peace”

        (one of the first books on International law
        and used by USG for “Laws of War”.

        I think it is the 3rd section
        that he wrote
        whoever gives you an ID,
        controls, or owns, or is the master.

  8. palani

    June 3, 2014 at 8:31 AM

    In an ongoing property tax controversy where the county decided they had the right to re-value the property arbitrarily and assess more dough for their expenses ….. to settle the dispute I told them that I considered the property to be valued in a certain sum of Spanish milled dollars. The assessor formed a committee to review the controversy and they decided that Federal Reserve Notes in the sum originally decided by the assessor was appropriate. I thanked them for their opinion but told them I had no contract with them so their opinion lacked authority. Any contract I might have had originally with them was cancelled by their new offer of revaluation. As I stated … the controversy is still ongoing.

  9. Tony

    June 3, 2014 at 9:07 AM


    I’ll bet the transformation includes the supplanting of “the law of the land” with “the law of the sea.” For years, whenever I would hear terms like maritime jurisdiction, admiralty jurisdiction, administrative courts of equity, my eyes would glaze over.

    I think the following hypothetical simplifies things.

    What if a merchant in (say) Lisbon, Portugal had a prospective buyer in Boston, Massachusetts and so his vessel transports 50 tons of cargo in anticipation of its sale. Say the buyer lacks the money.

    It makes all the sense in the world that the law of the sea just had to accommodate such a set of circumstances. Here are your notes (currency) enabling, among other things, that the merchant literally was given currency (the ability to continue his business). Of course, the only viability of those notes was their eventual exchange for lawful money.

    If disputes are almost always over some asset and given assets are almost always possessed thru exchange with notes – well, there you go. Only equity title was transferred and such disputes belong in maritime.

    I like this quote (which may not be genuine, but the content sure seems relevant):
    [Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.
    – allegedly Colonel Mandel House


  10. Jethro!

    June 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM

    Al wrote: “some readers have asked for statutory evidence of when those ‘territorial states’ were created by law.”

    When Dennis Craig was still with us I asked him about this matter. He stated repeatedly and unequivocally that the “territorial states” >>”Do not exist as a matter of law.”<< They only exist as a matter of presumption. That is, you'll find no law that created them because such laws don't exist. I believe the evidence has shown he was correct.

    You can find statutory evidence of "territorial states", but none of them have any authority derived from any organic law of any of the several States of the Perpetual Union or of "The United States of America". The June 25, 1948 acts of Congress (signed by Truman when Congress was not in session) fit into that category of "political acts", not law. It appears the "territorial states" exist not by law, but by those who "agree" to conduct their affairs on relation to them.

  11. Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris

    June 3, 2014 at 10:24 AM

    I know the corporate STATE OF CALIFORNIA was created in the District of Columbia in 1878, and adopted a mutated version of the original California Republic (1849) Constitution, changing “unalienable” to “inalienable”, and adding additional ‘articles’ ( the Codes: Tax and revenue Code, Civil Code, Penal Code, etc) :

    from Jack Slevkoff, researcher, Fresno, California, document “American Governance”, which parallels the timeline development of the corporate United States(1871) and the decline of the republic The United States of America (1778), as well as the creation of the federal State/territories conveniently name “STATE OF…”, within the corporate United States, located in the District of Columbia:

    (all capital letters–a fiction–a corporation)
    the United States of America
    the United States
    (intent or defined to be the corporate US),
    Started with:
    Gettysburg Address in 1864,
    and the Incorporation of
    District of Columbia by (Presidential) Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, under the Emergency War Powers Act and the Reconstruction Acts.
    Then reorganized June 11, 1878
    –16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62
    a ” Corporation”
    with a legislature was established,
    with all the apparatus of a distinct government created (Incorporated) by (Presidential) Legislative Act,
    February 21, 1871
    Forty-first Congress, Session III,
    Chapter 62, page 419

    On June 20, 1874, the President with advice of Senate abolished and replaced the 1871 government with a commission consisting of three persons.
    18 Stat. at L. 116, chap. 337

    A subsequent act approved June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102, chap. 180) was enacted stating that the District of Columbia should ‘remain and continue a municipal corporation,’ as provided in 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to said District
    (brought forward from the act of 1871)

    181 U.S. 453 (1901)


    Corporate Officers
    ” … But by the Act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. chap. 180), a permanent form of government for the District was established. It provided …and that the commissioners therein provided for should be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation.”
    The District of Columbia v. Henry E. Woodbury,
    136 U.S. 472 (1890)

    “United States” is the “District of Columbia” incorporated.
    “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State” Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785,
    Also: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287

    In UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28,
    in Section 3002 Definitions,
    it states the following:
    (15) “United States” means—
    (A) a Federal corporation;

    To incorporate means to become
    a part of something bigger

    Some people believe
    it is incorporated with England
    or the crown
    and the paperwork
    is filed in Puerto Rico.

    Certain members of Congress created the District of Columbia (DC) from portions of two states; Virginia (Virgin) and Maryland (Mary). Physically united together they are “Virgin Mary ,” to form a more perfect union as
    a new “United States”.

    US Titles and Codes,
    in their awkward definitions,
    call “DC” the “United States”

    The new “United States” includes States such as District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. It does not include the 50 states united.
    i.e. Title 26 Section 7701 Definitions (a) (9) and (10) 42 U.S.C. 405 (2)(c)(vii)

    All Titles of the United States Code (USC) are strictly meant for the United States and none of the 50 states of the Union. Each of the 50 states have their own constitutions and laws. See Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, 452, and John Barron v The Mayor and City of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243 (1833). These last two cases clearly state that the United States is not the 50 states of the Union.

    In U.S. Titles and Codes “State” refers to U.S. possessions such as Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.
    All States are corporations incorporated with the federal corporation

    e.g. “State of California”
    corporate California
    California State

    Politicians and the legislature of each state formed a new so-called government (de facto) and incorporated it into the corporate US commercial corporation a.k.a. UNITED STATES, Inc. and are therefore under its jurisdiction. This so-called government is actually a limited-liability corporation (Limited Liability Act of 1851), chartered in a private, military, international, commercial, admiralty/maritime jurisdiction, entitled “STATE OF…” as evidenced by, inter alia, the change in the seal and the flag and the creation of a new constitution. Each “STATE OF…” collects whole life insurance premiums, known as “taxes,” for the International Monetary Fund, based, inter alia, upon the Limited Liability Act of 1851 and the bankruptcy of United States of 1933.

    “In this state” or “within this state” includes all federal areas lying within the exterior boundaries of the state. –Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 82.04.200 found at:

    The citizens of the corporate States, federal areas, are “subjects” and are called “Residents”
    Derived from “res” meaning “the thing” and “ident” meaning “identify.” Therefore, a “resident” is
    “a thing identified.”
    And, “President” is “P-resident,” meaning “Principal resident” enjoined in the federal area.

    “Nonresident” means any person whose residence is outside “this state” and who is temporarily sojourning “WITHIN THIS STATE”. [1961 c 12 §46.04.360. Prior: 1959 c 49 § 37; prior: (i) 1943 c 153 § 1, part; 1937 c 188 § 1, part; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6312-1, part. (ii) 1937 c 189 § 1, part; RRS § 6360-1, part.] (emphasis added).
    All state governments today
    are corporations,
    not sovereign states.
    The corporate states were created by incorporation into the corporate federal United States as corporate entities appearing to be similar to and overlaying the republics so as not to rouse suspicion. Likewise, the corporate states created political subdivisions of the corporate state such as COUNTY OF FRESNO being similar to Fresno county but is not; COUNTY OF MADERA being similar to Madera county but is not; etc.

    The corporate States are controlled by the corporate US government by its purse strings such as grants, funding, matching funds, revenue sharing, disaster relief, etc.
    Comprehensive Annual
    Financial Report

    Section 666 of the Federal Social Security Code (42 USC §666) preempts Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (FERA) and similar acts of other states. Section 666 appears to mandate that every State is to force everyone to identify with a Social Security Number (SSN) in order to obtain a professional license, occupational license, recreational license, driver’s license, and or marriage license in spite of ones religious beliefs based on Revelation, Chapter 13, of the Bible which warns of a beast that requires every person to identify with a number in order to engage in a livelihood.`The Bible clearly states that one is not to accept a number whereby one cannot buy or sell without it.

    corporate flag
    of the
    being incorporated within
    the corporate UNITED STATES

    This flag design was adopted as the official flag of California in 1911 with minor changes in design from time to time. The last known design change was made by prominent California historian and artist Donald Kelley in 1953

    This flag is seen today in the corporate STATE OF CALIFORNIA usually with a gold fringe around it or with gold tassels, or with a ball or spear on top of the pole. The Grizzly bear design on the flag is based on Charles Nahl’s rendition on paper and in sculpture.

    In California, the US corporate military flag is required to be flown above the corporate California flag indicating which one is superior or submissive to the other.

    The corporate STATE OF CALIFORNIA is actually a fiction, overlaying the original California state, a republic.

    Government buildings of the original state, government buildings of the original counties, and buildings of the original government of the united states of America have been abandoned and become museums until such a time the original government is re-established and or re-convened.
    The original constitution was revised and adopted by the corporate State of California
    on May 7, 1879
    It has been revised many times hence.

    On April 24, 1950, the U.S. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, State of California, with Justice Wilson presiding in a case titled “SEI FUJI v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA” decided that the Law of the Land is the United Nations Charter

    Maxims Of Jurisprudence
    Of The California Civil Code
    3527 “The law helps the vigilant,
    before those who sleep on their rights.”
    3516 “Acquiescence in error
    takes away the right of objecting.”
    3521 “He who takes the benefit
    must bear the burden.”
    3523 “For every wrong there is a remedy.”
    3526 “No man is responsible for that
    which no man can control.”
    From the “Lectric Law Library’s Stacks”

    “We the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom: in Order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution”
    A one word change in the original State (California) constitution from “unalienable” to “inalienable” made rights into privileges

    “Inalienable” means government given rights that are “in-a-lien-able” condition.
    “Unalienable” means God given rights that are “not-in-a-lien-able” condition.
    Unalienable vs Inalienable


    • commonlawman

      June 3, 2014 at 3:53 PM

      “The citizens of the corporate States, federal areas, are “subjects” and are called “Residents”
      Derived from “res” meaning “the thing” and “ident” meaning “identify.” Therefore, a “resident” is
      “a thing identified.”
      And, “President” is “P-resident,” meaning “Principal resident” enjoined in the federal area. ”

      This is some of the most absurd stuff I’ve heard. You can’t pick apart words that way and get some applicable meaning. “Ice cream = I scream because it gives me brain freeze! Oh my god, it makes sense now!”
      Reside and preside are both verbs, and are what resident and president come from. There is no basis for your argument. We need to base more on fact than theory.

  12. Hank Albertson

    June 3, 2014 at 10:50 AM


    You are correct ! ! ! ! 

    I have asked the various STATE OF OREGON courts to identify themselves and compare themselves with Oregon, 33rd Union State.  They always refused.

    Likewise IRS – to whom I told that I would pay taxes if they would confirm under Oath that I, the natural man on the land of Oregon, 33rd Union State, had any reporting or tax payment duties.  They have refused since 1994.

    Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful in the several states, but any law allowed in the territorial ‘States’ as confirmed at 28 USC ss 1332 (e), 26 USC ss 7701 (10) etc.

    Yours in Liberty and Truth, Hank Albertson

    • mrtideman

      June 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM

      Hank, The I.R.S. took me to court back in 1983 in their case #M.83-50-D against me here in New Hampshire, when I was a landlord, and using Martin J. “Red” Beckman’s book (along with the book from Otto Skinner too), I won the case as not paying even one red cent for the $62,000 that they wanted from me, because when I got the agent on the stand in the hearing before the Magistrate I asked who the Secretary was and where be such a delegation letter and he could or would not answer the question. – – – – – As for FRNs they are supposed to be in-house transactions between the member banks by Title 12 U.S. Code Section 411 and not for general public circulation except by “consent” of I’d prefer the U.S. Notes. To presume that they’ve been monetized by Section 16, Part 15 thereof the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is to ass-u-me and you know what that means, right? (;-) On one note I copied and sent to the Treasury to audit such to see in which pallet of notes the Fed bought at 6-cents a note of ANY and ALL denominations up to the one hundred ($100) dollar bill was so much gold bullion either placed on deposit with that agent of “Uncle Sam” to take to Fort Knox, or to accept such a gold certificate FROM the Fed, but that all I got back was a letter saying in effect of: to get lost! Has anybody here ever seen such a gold certificate issued by the Fed, or do they use the old Gold Certificates? And if so where is it recorded as THAT gold certificate is to be called for FROM the U.S. Government to the Fed when THAT FRN be contested? but can ANY of us EVER contest such when holding such be illegal to begin with?

  13. californian

    June 3, 2014 at 12:12 PM

    @ Adask.. Forgive me if this has been mentioned already. As I have not read all the comments. Only your article. The proof you may have overlooked when the states became like territories is quite obvious. When the states adopted the UCC. Around the mid 1960s. I think maybe Ohio was a holdout. But most all states adopted the UCC around 1964 I believe. The UCC is the Supreme Law of the territories. Due to our silence. Nihil dicit. It is assumed by the govt. We have waived our rights and the UCC and FRNs our our choice of law. We can preserve our rights on contracts by the use of without prejudice. Now we inform the PTB we know who we are and they must follow the common law. This you already know about. I am not telling you something new.
    Without gold/silver the states had to adobt the UCC.

    • Adask

      June 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM

      Good point.

    • Felipe

      June 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM

      Beautifully stated!

  14. EarlatOregon

    June 3, 2014 at 1:44 PM


    A Survey of the Proposals to Limit or Deny
    the Power of Judicial Review
    by the Supreme Court of the United States

    Maurice S. Culp

  15. Adask

    June 3, 2014 at 2:31 PM

    Felipe: About IDs–I won’t yet bet on it, but I suspect that when they ask for “ID,” they’re not asking for an ID that defines who YOU are. They may be asking for an ID that shows whichever state/system–The State of the Union or “this state”–that you IDENTIFY WITH. If you produce an “ID” issued by “this state,” then you will have “identified with” “this state”. If you do, you’ll be deemed nothing but a subject and perhaps only an animal. You’ll have no rights worth mentioning and they can kick you around however they like.

    However, if you IDENTIFY WITH The State of Texas or some other State of the Union, they might recognize that you have significant rights and treat you with more respect and deference.

    That’s just a suspicion–not a statement of something I believe to be absolute truth. I think it might be true, but I’m not yet convinced.

  16. katmanwon

    June 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM

    How much fraud must someone tolerate before the fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents & judgments?


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