Protecting the “States” against Invasion

10 Nov

It all depends on the PLACE.  It all depends on WHERE. [courtesy Google Images]

It all depends on the PLACE. It all depends on WHERE.
[courtesy Google Images]

If you’ve followed this blog for a year or more, you should be aware that I subscribe to the hypothesis that the government has chosen to treat the “states of the United States” (like “Texas,” “Illinois” and “Florida”) as territories rather than States of the Union (“states of The United States of America”) like “The State of Texas,” “The State of Illinois,” and “The State of Florida”.  (You can see a list of articles dealing with this theory at:

If this hypothesis is true, it’s important because under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of The Constitution of the United States, the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories.  Within a “territory of the United States,” the Congress is the sovereign and can do anything they like.  They have unlimited powers in the territories.  The people of the territories have virtually no rights that they might be absolutely able to enforce other then those currently allowed by Congress.

Within the States of the Union, the people are sovereign and Congress has only those limited powers described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

So, it makes a big difference whether you are presumed to act and “appear” within the jurisdiction of a territory like “Texas,” “STATE OF TEXAS,” or TX” or if you’re presumed to act and live within the jurisdiction of a State of the Union like “The State of Texas”.  In the first instance, you are a subject without any rights that you can count on.  In the second instance, you are a sovereign with a multitude of unalienable Rights granted you by the God of the Bible and beyond denial by the government of that State of the Union.

That hypothesis is hard to grasp, hard to believe.  It was first advanced by Paul Andrew Mitchell in the late 1990s in his book “The Federal Zone”.  I couldn’t understand it at the time.  But over time, I’ve come to understand and believe that hypothesis is valid.

I can’t prove it, but I remain convinced that today’s modern “states” are presumed by the government to be “states of the United States” (territories) rather than “States of the Union”–States of The United States of America.


•  Here’s another evidence in support of that hypothesis.

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 4 of The Constitution of the United States declares,


“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

•  First, Article 4.4.4 guarantees to each State of the Union “a Republican Form of Government”.

If there are 50 member-States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States” of America,” there should be 50, separate, State government of the “Republican Form”.

Do we have a “Republican Form of Government” in any modern “state”–or do we have one or more democracies?

The word “democracy” does not appear in our federal Constitution, and yet we’re told that we live in  a “democracy”.  Why aren’t we told that we live under a “Republican Form of Government”?

We even prosecute wars on foreign nations to impose the purported blessing of “democracy” upon them.  If the terms “Republican Form of Government” and “democracy” are synonymous, why don’t we wage wars for the express purpose of imposing a “Republican Form of Government” (as declared in our Constitution)?  Why do we wage wars to extend “democracy” when that word is unknown to our Constitution?

I believe the answer is found in the hypothesis that the modern states of “Texas,” “Illinois,” et al are deemed to be “territories” rather than States of the Union.

The obligation imposed by Article 4.4.4 on the federal government to guarantee to each State a “Republican Form of Government” is only extended to the States of the Union.  At no point does the Constitution guarantee a “Republican Form of Government” to any territory or to Washington DC.  Within the territories of the United States, the federal government can impose any form of law or election it likes.  Thus, the democracy that would be unconstitutional within “The State of Texas” is completely constitutional within a territory of the United States.


•  Second, Article 4.4.4 obligates the “United States” (federal government) to “protect each of them [States of the Union] against Invasion.”  We know that the word “them” refers to the several States of the Union because, when the Constitution was first ratified by the people in A,.D 1788, that’s the only kind of “States” that existed.   Again, note that the obligation to protect against invasion is only mandated in relation to the States of the Union–there is no such obligation to protect the territories of the United States or Washington DC against invasions.

In case you haven’t noticed, our nation has already been invaded by somewhere between 11 and 35 million wetbacks (a/k/a “illegal immigrants”).  That invasion is ongoing.  But our government has not only done almost nothing to prevent that invasion and has, in many instances, openly encouraged it.

How can this be happening?

I suspect that part of legal foundation for failing to protect our “states” from this invasion is the presumption at the highest levels of government that our “states” are now merely territories rather than States of the Union.  If “Texas” is deemed to be a territory, the federal government has no constitutional obligation to protect Texas from an invasion by illegal aliens.  In fact, within the territory of “Texas,” the Congress might be within its constitutional powers to encourage Mexicans to invade and populate that “territory”.


•  Article 4.4.4 also deals with the federal government’s duty to provide military force to protect the States of the Union against “domestic Violence”–internal riots, revolutions, etc.–but only if the legislature of such State of the Union (and/or the Executive Branch, if the legislature is not in session) applies for federal assistance.

For example, as I write this article, we expect that a grand jury will soon declare if the white police officer who shot a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri was justified in doing so–or if the police officer should be charged and prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. More importantly, we are not only waiting to hear what the grand jury decides, we’re also waiting to see if blacks in the area will riot if the white police officer is exonerated.

If Missouri were a State of the Union, the federal government might have no authority to send federal troops into Missouri to quell the rioting unless the legislature or executive branch of The State of Missouri appealed for that assistance.   As long as the government of The State of Missouri said “We got this,” the feds could mind their own business and keep their troops back on the East Coast.  Thus, the States of the Union are protected from intrusion by federal troops–unless the legislature or governor of the State ask for assistance.

If the federal government can send troops to Ferguson without the Missouri legislature or governor (if the legislature is not in session) asking for assistance, Missouri is no longer protected from intrusion by federal troops.  If that’s true, is “Missouri” still a State of the Union–or is “Missouri” now deemed to be a territory and/or administrative district of the United States?


•  We may have seen the first conflict between what were believed to be States of the Union and the federal government’s presumption that these “States” were really territories in A.D. 1963, when Governor George Wallace stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to resist federal troops’ determination to integrate white schools in Alabama with black students.  Wallace was generally condemned and explained away as a racist–and those condemnations may have been true.

But it’s also true that Wallace was a proponent of “States’ Rights”–a concept which, at the time, was also vilified and treated to a big dose of contempt.

In the end, Wallace’s resistance was overcome by 100 members of the National Guard acting on orders of President John F. Kennedy.  There was no appeal by the Governor of Alabama (Wallace) nor by the legislature of Alabama to the federal government to send troops to help quell “domestic Violence” in The State of Alabama.  President Kennedy apparently acted unilaterally to deploy federal-troops/national-guard into Alabama without appeal by the government of the”state” of “Alabama”.

Did the conflict in Alabama signal that “States [of the Union] Rights” were being ignored and openly violated by the federal government?  Or did the federal government’s unilateral deployment of troops signal that “Alabama” was no longer deemed to be a State of the Union but was, instead, presumed to be a territory or administrative district of the United States?

I won’t argue that Wallace’s attempt to maintain segregation was justified, but I wonder if the significance of the correlative loss of “States’ Rights” was fully appreciated or even imagined at that time.

If “States’ Rights” (as in “States of the Union”) are gone, you are presumed to be a subject (rather than an individual sovereign), and Congress is presumed to be an aristocracy in charge of ruling this nation’s people as if we were all a bunch of animals, peons, or even slaves.


•  My purpose in for this articles is to illustrate how important it is to think in terms of the venue, plane or jurisdiction that provide the context for our statements and claims.  It’s not enough to claim that a particular law, court decision or governmental act are “unconstitutional”.  You must also specify where you claim that law, decision or act are “unconstitutional” because a law that’s completely unconstitutional within the borders of a State of the Union (a State of The United States of America) could be absolutely constitutional within the boundaries of a territory of administrative district of the United States.

For example, you might scream that a new gun-control law is “unconstitutional” because it clearly violates the terms of the Second Amendment.

But if you did your research and read the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights,” you might see that the fundamental intent behind what became the “Bill of Rights” was to protect the States of the Union–but not the territories, administrative districts or Washington DC–against intrusion by the federal government.

Thus, it’s not enough for you to scream that some legislation or court decision is “unconstitutional!”  You must also scream where it’s “unconstitutional!”  In what venue, plane or jurisdiction is the particular act “unconstitutional”?  If you won’t specify the jurisdictional context, your claim of “unconstitutionality” will be ignored because, under the Constitution, Congress has unlimited powers in the territories but only limited powers within the States of the Union.

Thus, every law Congress enacts is “constitutional” in at least some jurisdictions–the territories.  Why?  Because Congress has unlimited powers in the territories. Within the territories, Congress is the only sovereign.  Within the territories, anything goes.

Some laws that Congress enacts might be “constitutional” in both the territories and the States of the Union.  Why?  Because Congress has limited powers within the States of the Union.  If Congress enacts a law that’s “constitutional” within the jurisdictions of the States of the Union, that law is probably also constitutional within the territories.

But some laws that are quite constitutional within the territories are absolutely unconstitutional within the States of the Union.  For example, I strongly suspect that virtually all of Congress’ gun control laws (and probably income tax laws) are constitutional within the territories, but are absolutely unconstitutional within the States of the Union.

So, when people simply scream that a new gun control (or income tax) law is “unconstitutional”–they’re wrong.  They’re making a general statement that might be true in some jurisdictions (States of the Union), but is not true in others (territories). Therefore, their claims of general “unconstitutionality” will be properly dismissed because these people are screaming generalities rather than making precise statements.

Law is all about linguistic precision–“Mother may I?” and “Simon sez” to the nth degree.

If you’re going to complain that a particular gun control law is unconstitutional, I believe you’ll have to:

1) specify where you think it’s constitutional (within the States of the Union); and then,

2) prove that your keeping and bearing of an “arm” relevant to the case at hand took place exclusively within a State of the Union.

You may have to concede that the gun-control law is constitutional within a territory of the United States.  But if you assert that it’s still unconstitutional within States of the Union and if you can successfully prove that all of your activities in relationship to the “arm” took place within a State of the Union, you’ll have a chance of winning your case.

It won’t be easy.


Congress can enact the most idiotic, tyrannical law concerning gun control and, no matter how absurd it will seem, that law will be “constitutional”–within the jurisdiction of territories and/or administrative districts of the United States and Washington DC.

But, if you don’t grasp the idea that every law is only effective or constitutional in some jurisdictions, but not in all, you won’t stand a chance of winning an argument based on the 2nd Amendment.

Same thing is true with the 4th, 5th, 6th Amendments that are being constantly whittled away.  Those Amendments were only intended to protect the States of the Union–not the territories.  If you allow the courts to presume that your relevant conduct took place in a territory, you won’t have standing to make claims under the Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, if you can establish that your venue, plane and jurisdiction is within a State of the Union, you may be able to give the gov-co a real run for its money.

If you want to run that race, you’ve got to learn to expressly associate the constitutionality of every law with the particular venue, plane or jurisdiction where it is effective.  You’ve got to learn to associate every law with the word “where“.


Tags: , , , , , ,

15 responses to “Protecting the “States” against Invasion

  1. Mike

    November 10, 2014 at 12:09 PM

    Mr. Adask,
    You have a very well reasoned argument going on here. I believe your analysis is correct. I do wonder if the (illegally ratified and never signed by the president) 14th amendment is their justification for treating lawful States of the Union as subjects, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

    Buried within the mountains of laws and decisions I believe is the gem that can restore the republic to a facsimile the founders would recognize. An honest evaluation of the 14th Amendment and how it was pushed on The States of the Union at gunpoint (see below) and how the President at the time, Johnson was impeached for not supporting an illegal law. I think Marbury V Madison winds up saying if a law violates The Constitution, then it is not a law.

    *There is documentation in the New Jersey State Minuets of their Senators being led from the room before the vote by Union Soldiers.

    • Gary

      November 10, 2014 at 1:01 PM

      don’t forget that their are 2 different ‘constitutions’, the original, organic Constitution For The United States of America (c.1789) , and the US Constitution (c.1871), which is the corporate charter for the United States, which was incorporated in, and exists ENTIRELY within the District of Columbia

      “UCC 9-307 (h). Location of United States. The United States is located in the District of Columbia.”
      SECTION 9301- 9342
      9307. (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

      so, the original 13th amendment (no titles of nobility) still exists in The Constitution For The United States of America, but NOT in the ‘US Constitution’ for the District of Columbia, which has an anti-slavery 13th amendment, as well as the 14th and subsequent ‘amendments to their corporate charter that do NOT exist in the organic document from 1789, The Constitution For The United States of America.

      As Alfred always points out, it’s about VENUE, WHERE you are, as to which document applies to you, even though few seem to be aware that they have been kidnapped by the ‘United States’ and are now ‘US citizens’, and NOT ‘Americans’, by means of their SSNs:

      § 15.00. Information Required to Establish Legal Presence in the United States (U.S.) for Purpo…
      Barclays Official California Code of Regulations
      Title 13. Motor Vehicles
      Division 1. Department of Motor Vehicles
      Chapter 1. Department of Motor Vehicles
      Article 2. Driver Licenses and Identification Cards (Refs & Annos)
      13 CCR § 15.00
      § 15.00. Information Required to Establish Legal Presence in the United States (U.S.) for Purpose of Determining Eligibility for an Original Driver License or Identification Card.
      (a) U.S. citizens who apply for an original driver license or identification card shall submit one of the following documents that is legible and unaltered to establish proof of the person’s legal presence in the United States.
      (1) A certified copy of a United States birth certificate issued in or by a city, county, or state vital statistics department.
      (2) A U.S. Certificate of Birth Abroad (FS-545, DS-1350) or a Report of Birth Abroad of U.S. Citizen (FS-240).
      (3) A Proof of Indian Blood Degree issued by the federal government.
      (4) A Certified Birth Certificate issued from:
      (A) Puerto Rico, on or after January 13, 1941.
      (B) Guam, on or after April 10, 1899.
      (C) U.S. Virgin Islands, on or after January 17, 1917.
      (D) Northern Mariana Islands, after November 4, 1986.
      (E) American Samoa.

      As for the ‘state’ (usually states of the perpetual Union) vs ‘State’ (usually a coroporate subdivision of the United States):

      SECTION 1-89.1
      1. This code shall be known as the Fish and Game Code.
      83. “State” means the State of California, unless applied to the
      different parts of the United States. In the latter case, it includes
      the District of Columbia and the territories.

    • Henry

      November 10, 2014 at 3:51 PM


      An opinion of possible relevance is that of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case a few years before all the changes caused by the Civil War (e.g. the 14th Amendment). The concept of citizenship seems important here, hence the emphasis added to the following excerpts from the ruling:

      “There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Government to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the United States or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure; nor to enlarge its territorial limits in any way, except by the admission of new States. That power is plainly given; and if a new State is admitted, it needs no further legislation by Congress, because the Constitution itself defines the relative rights and powers, and duties of the State, and the citizens of the State, and the Federal Government. But no power is given to acquire a Territory to be held and governed permanently in that character.”

      “…[I]t may be safely assumed that citizens of the United States who migrate to a Territory belonging to the people of the United States, cannot be ruled as mere colonists, dependent upon the will of the General Government, and to be governed by any laws it may think proper to impose. The principle upon which our Governments rests is the union of States, sovereign and independent within their own limits in… their internal and domestic concerns, and bound together as one people by a General Government, possessing certain enumerated and restricted powers, delegated to it by the people of the several States….”

      “But the power of Congress over the person or property of a citizen can never be a mere discretionary power under our Constitution and form of Government. The powers of the Government and the rights and privileges of the citizen are regulated and plainly defined by the Constitution itself. And when the Territory becomes a part of the United States, the Federal Government enters into possession in the character impressed upon it by those who created it. It enters upon it with its powers over the citizen strictly defined, and limited by the Constitution, from which it derives its own existence, and by virtue of which alone it continues to exist and act as a Government and sovereignty. It has no power of any kind beyond it; and it cannot, when it enters a Territory of the United States, put off its character, and assume discretionary or despotic powers which the Constitution has denied to it.”

      “…[T]he rights of private property have been guarded with… care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.”

      – Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

      • henry

        November 10, 2014 at 4:33 PM

        It has been posited that “The State of Texas” is different than “STATE OF TEXAS”. In other posts on this site the term “Citizen of the United States”, established in the Constitution, is compared to “citizen of the United States”, as used in the 14th Amendment. The first is a citizen of the several states with unalienable rights and the second is a federal citizen with privileges granted to the former slaves by Congress. The Dread Scott decision was written a decade and a half earlier than the 14th Amendment but it used the term “citizen of the United States”. It’s capitalization seems to match the 14th Amendment but the meaning seems to be match the meaning in the Constitution. Was the Supreme Court sloppy with capitalization or did it signify something? If there was a plot to undermine the meaning of the Constitution by using alternative definitions to terms already in use, it would be expected that someone on the court would dissent. Is there any evidence of such dissenting opinions on these issues?

      • Henry

        November 10, 2014 at 5:39 PM

        I don’t attribute much significance to the difference in capitalization between “Citizen of the United States” in the Constitution and “citizen of the United States” in the Dred Scott ruling. The word “citizen” is capitalized in the Constitution simply because, in the 1780s, all nouns were capitalized. For example, also from the Constitution:

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

        This rule, by which all nouns are capitalized, remains in effect even today in the German language. However, by the time the Dred Scott decision was drafted in the 1850s, the capitalization of all nouns was no longer common practice in the English language.

        For me, this is enough to account for the difference in capitalization without theorizing that someone was trying to sneak through a fundamental and pervasive change in U.S. law using a clever trick of spelling.

  2. henry

    November 10, 2014 at 12:09 PM

    “The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244

  3. palani

    November 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM

    Territories attach to municipalities. Laws attach to people. Persons are created when rights or duties are proclaimed by actions, words or representation. Laws don’t attach to territories. Laws exist when people move into a territory and bring their laws with them. Municipalities are incapable of creating law or declaring law.

    The District of Columbia came into existence because no provisions were made for attaching territory to any of the several states. The District is a municipality. Each state is actually a city-state. The capital city is the municipality that the territory claimed by that state is attached to. A subdivision of a state is a county. Turns out there are no people in any county. This conclusion is reached because when counties were created they were declared by boundary on territory rather than by people. The only government organization people fit into are hundreds and Delaware is the only state I know of that keeps this tradition.

  4. Hank Albertson

    November 10, 2014 at 4:33 PM

    IRS, US of DC, STATE OF OREGON, OR, etc., etc., have refuse to respond to the following facts:

    Continuing with your foundation, I haven’t paid federal or ‘state’ income taxes since 1994 because IRS and ODOR (Oregon Department of Revenue) have refused to answer or rebut the following:
    1. I am not a United States (14th Amendment/D.C.) citizen, person, taxpayer, contractor, resident or domicile and refuse US of DC, IRS and ODOR any power of attorney or use of my Name, Life, Credit, or property.
    2. I am not the fictional LEO HENRY (HANK) ALBERTSON JR), A.K.A. Leo Henry (Hank) Albertson Jr. US Trust, which was created by and is owned by US of DC and is the false personation trust identified at 26 USC § 7701 (a) (30) (i) and (ii).
    3. Is the OREGON or OR you use in sending mail that arrives at my address the 33rd Union State of Oregon?
    4. Is the ‘United States’ you use in your official capacity the United States of the Union States, or is it limited to the government of D.C. (US of DC) and its alleged territories, areas, zones, states, etc.?
    Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L. Ed. 1252 (1945), declared there are three ‘United States,’ the 2nd being territory (US of DC) over which it has sovereignty
    5. I refuse consent to US of DC, IRS, ODOR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES, UN, STATE OF OREGON and OR; and, refuse them any power of government or to adjudicate any of my alleged controversies; and, require common law remedy in all instances, in a court competent to give it.
    6. Does US of DC, IRS, ODOR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES, UN, STATE OF OREGON or OR have any jurisdiction over me, the living man on the land of the 33rd Union State of Oregon, all Rights reserved without prejudice, sui juris, or any power to Order me to report or pay any taxes?
    7. Are there any claims against me, the living man on the land of the 33rd Union State of Oregon in the instant action?
    8. It is my intent to obey all laws and pay all taxes that pertain to me. Nonetheless, I have heretofore been unable to get answers to my questions from IRS and ODOR. The Supreme Court of the United States has declared it my obligation to determine the boundaries of IRS and ODOR authority before entering into any agreement with it/them.
    “Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority.” (at page 384, italic emphasis added). The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. Merrill, 332 &.S. 380 (1947):
    9. Therefore, having experienced much fraud from and by government, I require IRS and ODOR to take notice of each of my statements and questions and answer or rebut any that are wrong under penalty of perjury (see 26 USC § 6065) – before any reporting or payment of any taxes.
    10. This unsworn letter is made under penalty of perjury and limited to appearance without the US of DC and under the supreme Law of the Land of the United Union States of America, and is required to all adverse parties pursuant to their 28 USC § 1746.

  5. henry

    November 10, 2014 at 5:29 PM

    I have many questions:
    How many times have they attempted to contact you? Have they ever stole anything from you?
    Do you get compensated by a corporation for the labor that you give to them?
    If so, has the Alphabet soup agencies contacted them?
    If so, how did they respond?
    Do you use American banks?
    If so, how does that work? — SSN, UCC, …
    If not, how do you compensate others for the goods and services that you receive from them?
    Do you own you home? Do you have a mortgage?
    Do you, or did you, have school aged children?
    If so, did/do you send them to government indoctrination centers also known as public schools?
    What impact is Obamacare having on you? Can you find medical treatment if you need it?
    Do you have a car/driver’s license?
    Do you have a passport? Have you traveled overseas?
    Are you married? If so, is your wife on-board with your actions?
    Do you have insurance? – car, home, health, life.
    Do you own any investments in the stock market?
    What has been the most challenging aspect of actions that you have taken?
    Do you vote?

    I have a dozen or so more questions but this would be a good place to pause.

    • Phil Lings

      November 16, 2014 at 8:43 AM

      henry, hello there,
      You say, I have many questions:
      GOOD questions TOO. But, will you get ONE ANSWER? I don’t think so, & we both know why.

  6. Ann

    November 12, 2014 at 12:03 PM

    Federalist Papers 12. “What will be the consequence, if we are not able to avail ourselves of the resource in question in its full extent? A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province.”

    Congressional Record Vol. 139, Washington, Wednesday, March 17, 1993 No. 33, H1303, “MR. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lend to our demise.

  7. Cody

    November 13, 2014 at 4:37 PM

    It appears that the states have the prerogative to act as a territory or a state, depending on the desires of the political powers that be. The people are too convinced that Fox News is telling them the truth to know otherwise.

    “The principles of limited national powers and statesovereignty are intertwined.” Bond vs. US, 2010

    • Hank Albertson

      November 13, 2014 at 10:39 PM

      There are three ‘United States’ (Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L. Ed. 1252 1945), ’ one being territory over which it has sovereignty. Therefore, there is the US of the Union States (US of US) and US of D.C. (US of DC). BAR attorneys pretending to be Judges always operate in the US of DC. Therefore, we have the original State of Oregon and US of DC STATE OF OREGON and OR. This is very easy to prove – ask a court if their STATE is the original State. They will refuse to answer.

  8. Mick

    July 3, 2015 at 5:04 PM

    I have noticed in the Texas Constitution that “state” and “State” sometimes appear in the same paragraphs. In the following statute, there is an Historic and Revision note about “territory” and “Territory” (I would highlight where it is, but this site apparently doesn’t support that stuff).
    Note also, that “State” is used, “Federal” (noun – used as a supporter of the government of the U.S. – Webster’s Dict. Ninth) is used. This leads me (right or wrong) to thinking the capitalized word has to do, specifically, with the federal level. There is usually nothing special about the words, “state” (noun) or “federal” (adjective) or “territory” (noun) except when they are applied to the United States [corporation?].



    Sec. 111. Same; taxation affecting Federal employees; income tax

    (a) General Rule.–The United States consents to the taxation of pay
    or compensation for personal service as an officer or employee of the
    United States, a territory or possession or political subdivision
    thereof, the government of the District of Columbia, or an agency or
    instrumentality of one or more of the foregoing, by a duly constituted
    taxing authority having jurisdiction, if the taxation does not
    discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of
    the pay or compensation.
    (b) Treatment of Certain Federal Employees Employed at Federal
    Hydroelectric Facilities Located on the Columbia River.–Pay or
    compensation paid by the United States for personal services as an
    employee of the United States at a hydroelectric facility–
    (1) which is owned by the United States;
    (2) which is located on the Columbia River; and
    (3) portions of which are within the States of Oregon and

    shall be subject to taxation by the State or any political subdivision
    thereof of which such employee is a resident.
    (c) Treatment of Certain Federal Employees Employed at Federal
    Hydroelectric Facilities Located on the Missouri River.–Pay or
    compensation paid by the United States for personal services as an
    employee of the United States at a hydroelectric facility–

    [[Page 13]]

    (1) which is owned by the United States;
    (2) which is located on the Missouri River; and
    (3) portions of which are within the States of South Dakota and

    shall be subject to taxation by the State or any political subdivision
    thereof of which such employee is a resident.

    (Added Pub. L. 89-554, Sec. 2(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 608; amended
    Pub. L. 105-261, div. A, title X, Sec. 1075(b)(1), Oct. 17, 1998, 112
    Stat. 2138.)

    Historical and Revision Notes
    Revised Statutes and
    Derivation U.S. Code Statutes at Large
    5 U.S.C. 84a……….. Apr. 12, 1939, ch. 59,
    Sec. 4, 53 Stat. 575.

    The words “received after December 31, 1938,” are omitted as
    obsolete. The words “pay or” are added before “compensation” for
    clarity as the word “pay” is used throughout title 5, United States
    Code, to refer to the remuneration, salary, wages, or compensation for
    the personal services of a Federal employee. The word “territory” is
    not capitalized as there are no longer any “Territories.” The words
    “to tax such compensation” are omitted as unnecessary.


    1998–Pub. L. 105-261 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a),
    inserted heading, and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

    Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

    Pub. L. 105-261, div. A, title X, Sec. 1075(b)(2), Oct. 17, 1998,
    112 Stat. 2139, provided that: “The amendment made by this subsection
    [amending this section] shall apply to pay and compensation paid after
    the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 17, 1998].”

    A service of the U.S. Government Printing Office.


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