RSS

Chisholm vs Georgia and Wong Kim Ark on Individual Sovereignty—Which Decision is more Believable?

06 Jun

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

This is an odd article.  It started out as a quick reply to a comment posted by “Roger” on my blog and grew into something far more substantial.  I expected to write one or two hundred words.  I wrote over five thousand.

It’s as if I started out intending to take a trip to the 7-11 to pick up some milk and wound up in Singapor.  I was diverted.  It’s not the journey I’d planned and expected, but it was kinda interesting, just the same.

The article starts with a conflict over the concept of individual sovereignty as viewed by the Supreme Court in the Chisholm vs Georgia case of A.D. 1793 and the Wong Kim Ark case of A.D. 1898:

.

Roger’s Comment

@Toland

Wong Kim Ark, quoting State v. Manuel: The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people…

Exactly, and the members of this sovereign “collective body of the people” are what Chisholm v. Georgia calls “sovereigns” (plural) “without subjects”, by virtue of their being “joint tenants in the sovereignty”.

But wait, “without subjects”? See this:

Wong Kim Ark, quoting State v. Manuel: The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law…

If citizen = subject, how then are the “sovereigns” (plural) “without subjects”?

Answer: The people as “sovereigns” (plural) – that is, the people as individuals – are indeed “without subjects”, because the “proper sovereignty” (Chisholm v. Georgia) of the “sovereigns” (plural) is only exercised at the collective level. Thus, only the “collective body of the people” has subjects: i.e. the “citizens of the State.”

.

My reply:

The “answer” (or at least, “another answer”) to the apparent conflict between Chisholm (A.D. 1793) and Wong (A.D. 1898) is that the courts have seldom been consistent in their opinions.  More, the government itself has had a vested interest in quashing whatever evidence of individual sovereignty might be found in our founding, organic documents.

I.e., if you and I are each a sovereign, the government must be our public servant.  It’s axiomatic that government always serves the sovereign(s).   If government is our public servant, government employees must be our public servants.

But government doesn’t want to serve.

Government wants to rule.

Not just our government.  Every government.    Therefore our government enacts laws and creates court decisions that help destroy both the people’s sovereignties and the government’s correlative servitude.

The Supreme Court that decided Chisholm vs Georgia in A.D. 1793 accepted government’s status as public servant and was dedicated to protecting the people’s revolutionary freedoms, liberties and individual sovereignty.

The court that decided Wong Kim Ark in A.D. 1898 (over 100 years after Chisholm) was dedicated to growth of government power and sovereignty and therefore equally dedicated to reducing the people’s status from sovereigns to subjects.

Wikipedia describes the Wong Kim Ark case as follows:

 

United States v. Wong Kim Ark169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its [the Supreme Court’s] interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.”

.

First, Wong expanded the powers of the 14th Amendment and federal government by declaring that anyone “born in the United States” was a “U.S. citizen”.

How many of you believe that the 14th Amendment (A.D. 1868) was designed to enhance the American people’s  liberties and freedoms?   Not many, I’d bet.

How many of you believe that the Founding Fathers could’ve even imagined adding the 14th Amendment to the Bill of Rights (A.D. 1781)?  The 14th Amendment would’ve been deemed anathema by the Founders.  They probably couldn’t have even suggested the 14th Amendment because it enhanced the powers of the federal government and diminished the rights of the people of the States of the Union.

How many of you believe that the post-Civil-War 14th Amendment was designed to reduce our liberties and freedoms?  Lots, I’d bet.

If the 14th was designed to reduce the people’s liberties and freedoms, why would anyone be surprised that the Wong case was “interpreted” by the Supreme Court to diminish our liberties and status as individual sovereigns?

.

Second, if the Wong case decided that virtually anyone born “in the United States” was therefore a “U.S. citizen” (roughly, a citizen of the federal government), where, pray tell, is the “United States”?

The 4th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary (A.D. 1968), provides the following definition,

 

UNITED STATES. This term has several mean­ings. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the ConstitutionHooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U. S. Ohio, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 324 U.S. 652, 89 L.Ed. 1252.”

.

I know that these multiple definitions of the term “United States” were provided in A.D. 1945 in the Hooven case—not A.D.1898 in the Wong case.  But one of two things must be true.  Either Hooven’s multiple definitions of “United States” must’ve been true ever since We the People created this country, or one or more of the three definitions seen in Hooven must’ve been created by edict of the Supreme Court rather than by the Constitution enacted by the People.

If Hooven’s several definitions of “United States” have always applied, then they applied when the Chisholm case was decided in A.D. 1793, when Hooven was decided in A.D. 1945 and today.  But, according to the last three editions of Black’s Law Dictionary, the Hooven definitions no longer applies.  Today, according to Black’s 9th, the term “United States” means “United States of America”—but note that there’s no reference to “The United States of America” which is the proper name of the confederation and perpetual Union created by the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781.  Given that that Union was declared to be “perpetual,” it’s still here.  It appears to me that while “United States” and “United States of America” may be synonymous, “The United States of America” (created by the Articles of Confederation in A.D. 1781) and “United States” (created by the Constitution of the United States in A.D. 1788) are two different entities, jurisdictions, venues.   The law of one is not necessarily the law of the other.  The power that government can exert in one may be limited while the power it can exert in the other is almost limitless.

It seems odd to me that the Supreme Court was more than willing to offer several definitions of “United States” in the Hooven case but, so far as I know, never offered a definition of “The United States of America”.  To me, that seems like an oversight.

.

•  If the several Hooven definitions haven’t always applied to the term “United States,” where and when and where were they created? What part of the Constitution authorizes that creation?  Who has authority to change the meaning of the term “United States” created by the People in the Constitution?   Who has authority to add new definitions of the term “United States”?     Were these several definitions created to enhance the people’s liberties or the government’s powers?

If some element of the federal government (say, the Supreme Court) is adding one or more definitions for the term “United States,” won’t those additional definitions confuse, contradict and even violate the people’s original meaning in the Constitution?

I understand that Black’s Law Dictionary is not a legal authority, but almost every licensed attorney and judge probably has one or more copies of that text and deem the definitions to be credible.  I also understand that Black’s is too well-established to change or add definitions without having seen some legal cause to do so.  My point is that, unless Black’s arbitrarily assigns its own definitions to fundamental terms like “United States,” the changes from Hooven’s several definitions seen in Black’s 4th through 6th editions . . . to the missing definition (for “United States”) in Black’s 7th . . . and on to the equivalence to “United States of America” in Black’s 8th and 9th . . . are all evidence that the definition(s) of the term “United States” are in a constant state of flux.

I have to presume that the Supreme Court is the author of these multiple and changing definitions because, so far as I know, the Supreme Court has never officially rejected any of these several definitions.

Which brings me back to some fundamental questions:

When some cop, court, lawyer or law refers to “United States,” which “United States” are they talking about?  Did that “United States” exist for a while and then disappear?  Does that specific “United States” still exist?  Which “United States” has authority over me?  Which does not?  And, when the Supreme Court declared in the Wong Kim Ark case that, practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen, which of the several “United States” were they talking about?

.

•  The second of the three definitions of “United States” provided by the Supreme Court in the Hooven case reads, “UNITED STATES. . . . may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends.” Hmph.   Interesting.

Confusing, too.

It’s a fundamental rule of etymology (dictionary science) that definitions should not include the word that’s being defined.  I.e., you shouldn’t define the word “red” as “the color red”.   You have to find words other than “red” to define “red”.

Likewise, it seems doubtful that Hooven’s definition of “United States” as “territory over which the sovereignty of United States extends” is a proper definition.  After all, Hooven itself declares that there are (at least) three definitions of “United States,” so which “United State” is the one whose sovereignty extends over the “territory” that could be called “United States”?   You’d think that the wordsmiths on the Supreme Court could do a better job of defining a term as fundamental as “United States”—unless they chose not to.

In any case, as you may know, as I read Article 1 of the Constitution to tells us that the “United States” federal government has only limited powers within the borders of the States of the Union.  I.e., the feds aren’t sovereign within the States of the Union.

However, I also read Article 4.3.2 mean that the Congress (“United States”?)  has exclusive legislative jurisdiction within the territories of the “United States”.  I read Article 4.3.2 to mean that Congress is sovereign over the territories.

Congress is definitely sovereign over some places (territories) and it’s not sovereign over other places that are within the borders of the States of the Union.  How do we know for sure if we are living and acting within the borders of a State of the Union (where Congress is not sovereign and we are not subjects) or in some sort of “territory” of the United States (where Congress is sovereign and we are therefore subjects)—especially when “United States” has multiple definitions?

Inquiring minds . . . .

.

•  Further, note that, although the Supreme Court provided three definitions for the term “United States” in the Hooven case, it did not expressly declare that the term had only three definitions.   Instead, the Supremes expressly declared that the term “United States” has “several meanings”.  They named three, but there could be four, or ten or even twenty.

Have these multiple definitions always existed, or do they rise and fall, change or disappear from day to day, month to month, year to year to suit the government’s convenience?

It’s not necessarily true, but wouldn’t you think that the “Constitution of the [singular] United States” (the document that created the “United States”) would have only created one “United States” with a single, constitutional meaning?

If several lawful definitions of “United States” can be inferred from the Constitution, should we change its name to the “Constitution of the Several ‘United States’”?

My point is that Supreme Court’s loyalty to the revolutionary ideas and values and to the Constitution was much higher in A.D. 1793 when the court seemed to affirm the concept of individual sovereignty in the Chisholm case than it was in A.D. 1898 when another Supreme Court seemingly denied the concept of individual sovereignty in the Wong case.

You can’t assume that the courts of A.D. 1793 and A.D. 1898 are equally honorable and dedicated to preserving the People’s liberties.  You can’t assume that the Chisholm case (A.D. 1793) and the Wong case (A.D. 1898) should be consistent.

My point, crudely put, is that the treasonous a-holes on the Supreme Court make this “sh-t” up as they go along.  Routinely, the Supremes don’t tell us what the law established by the sovereign People is—they tell us what they and the government public servants want the law to be.  More, rather than protect the people’s interests, our later courts are determined to protect and expand the government’s interests.

If the shysters on the Supreme Court can “make up” the law as they go along, the “law” is as plastic and malleable as a lump of wet clay.  Today, we can make the law into a flat plate. Tomorrow into a jug.  The day after that, a bust of General Ulysses S. Grant.

Once upon a time, our fundamental law was the People’s law, the sovereigns’ law—the Constitution and associated Organic documents.  Today, our fundamental law is the government’s statutory law and administrative regulations which generally translate into “heads, the government wins; and, tails, the people lose.”

People who believe that case law is fixed are fools.  It can mean anything at any time that the court and/or jury feels is necessary, desirable or even amusing.  The “law” is the law of the moment; the law of impulse; it’s whatever the courts and government think they can get away with.

.

Third, under the Wong case of A.D. 1898, does birth in all of the “several” defined instances of “United States” confer U.S. citizenship on a child?  Or is U.S. citizenship conferred only when a child is born in one (two?) particular definition(s) of “United States”?

.

Fourth, the third definition of “United States” in Black’s fourth edition is particularly interesting:  “or it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”

Note that although Black’s referred to “collective name,” they didn’t use the word “a” (indefinite article) or “the” (definite article) to describe the term “collective name”.  Is “United States” the one and only “collective name” for the “states which are united by and under the Constitution”?   Or, is “United States” one of several different names that might be construed as “a collective name” for said states?

Curiously, the failure to use a definite or indefinite article before “collective name” is the fault of Black’s rather than the Supreme Court.  According to Findlaw.com, the Supreme Court actually declared in Hooven that,

 

“The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States ex- [324 U.S. 652, 672]  tends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”

.

The Supreme Court declared “United States” to be “the” (meaning one and only) “collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution”.

Two paragraphs later, the Supreme Court in Hooven again refers to “the collective name”:

 

“The relation of the Philippines to the United States, taken as the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution, is in many respects different from the status of those areas which, when the Constitution was adopted, were brought under the control of Congress and which were ultimately organized into states of the United States. See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 304 , 305 S., 42 S.Ct. 343, 345, 346, and cases cited.”

Twice, the Supremes defined “United States” in Hooven to sometimes mean “the collective name” of the “states which are united by and under the Constitution”.

Twice, the Supreme used the phrase “states which are united by and under the Constitution”.

That strikes me as odd.

The phrase “states which are united by and under the Constitution” seems clumsy and overly verbose.  Isn’t there a shorter, easier way to describe those “states”?

In fact, when I stop to think about the phrase “states which are united by and under the Constitution,” I’m led to infer that there may also be “states which are not united by and under the Constitution.”

It’s like telling a friend, “You can have all the apples on my tree that are bright green.”  Doesn’t that statement imply that there must also be some apples that are not “bright green”? (Red, for example?)

If there are no red apples and all the apples are bright green, why not simply say “You can have all the apples”?  Or even, “You can have the apples”?   Why qualify the gift apples by adding “that are bright green” unless there are also some other apples that are red (or even pale green)?

Similarly, why did the Supreme Court qualify its reference to “states” by adding that such “states” are united: 1) by the Constitution; and also, 2) under (subject to) the Constitution?

Don’t those two qualifiers at least imply that there must be some other kind of “states” that, though similar, are:  1) not united by the Constitution; and 2) not united under the Constitution?

Does the Hooven decision support the proposition that “states of the United States” and “States of The United States of America” are two separate and mutually exclusive kinds of “states”?

 

Fifth, what exactly, are the “states which are united by and under the Constitution”?  The Constitution of the United States was drafted and ratified by the States of the Union.  Those individual States were created by the Declaration of Independence (A.D. 1776).  They were subsequently united into the confederation and perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” under the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781.

The States of the Union were already united under the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781) before they ratified the Constitution in A.D. 1788.  I don’t see how the States of the Union that were already united under the Articles of Confederation were also subsequently “united” (for a second time) by . . . the Constitution”.

Could it be that the Hooven case’s third definition of “United States “ (“states which are united by and under the Constitution”) refers to a second kind of “states” that are not States of the Union?

Further, insofar as the Constitution was drafted and ratified by the pre-existing “States of the Union,” the Constitution and resulting “United States” would seem to be inferior to and subject to the Union and/or the States of the Union.  I.e., the States of the Union created the Constitution.  As its creators, how could the States of the Union be fully “under [subject to] the Constitution”?

Again, we see evidence that the “states which are united by and under the Constitution” may be a second kind of “state” that is fundamentally different from the States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.

Modern Titles in the United States Code refer to “states of the United States”.    Are the “states of the United States” identical to, or fundamentally different from the “States of The United States of America”?

 

Sixth, the Hooven decision is also a little confusing insofar as the Supreme Court wrote,

 

“The relation of the Philippines to the United States, taken as the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution, is in many respects different from the status of those areas [territories?] which, when the Constitution was adopted, were brought under the control of Congress [again, that sounds like territories exclusively subject to Congress under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution] and which were ultimately organized into states of the United States. See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 304 , 305 S., 42 S.Ct. 343, 345, 346, and cases cited.”

It seems certain that the court’s reference to “areas” at the time the Constitution was ratified by the people in A.D. 1788 must refer to territories rather than to the thirteen States of the Union.

These territories would differ from the States of the Union in that, before joining the Union under the Articles of Confederation, those first, thirteen “States” were independent nations created by the Declaration of Independence in A.D. 1776.

However, virtually all of the subsequent “states” (Ohio, Indiana, Nebraska, California, etc.) started out as territories that were first “brought under the control of Congress” and which were initially subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution.  Congress, having exclusive legislative control over the territories, was always sovereign over the territories.   Therefore, within the territories, individual men and women could not be sovereigns.  They had to be subjects of Congress.

Congress did not have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the States of the Union.  Within those States of the Union, Congress was definitely not sovereign and the people may have been individual sovereigns.  (It’s not hard to imagine that Congress would’ve relished the role of sovereign over the territories and dreamed of being sovereign over the States of the Union, as well.)

All of this conjecture suggests that out of the current “50 states,” the original 13 started as separate nations and the remaining 37 started as “territories”—with one, maybe two, exceptions:  Texas and, perhaps, Hawaii.

Before it joined the perpetual Union, Texas was an independent nation—just like the original 13 States.

Hawaii had been taken by military conquest by the U.S. before it became a territory and then a “state”.  I don’t know enough about the rules of war, conquest, etc. to say whether Hawaii was therefore an independent nation (like the original 13 States and Texas) before it became a “state” or if it was a true territory.

I don’t even know if the distinction between “states” that started as nations or that started as territories is important or even valid.

Still, the importance of whether a particular “area” started out as a territory or independent nation is suggested by the Hooven court’s  reference to,

 

“. . . areas which, when the Constitution was adopted, were brought under the control of Congress and which were ultimately organized into states of the United States.”

I can’t prove it and my speculation is improbable.  Still, I’m beginning to strongly suspect that the “States of the Union” (States of “The United States of America”) and the “states of the United States” are two entirely different kinds of “states” and the fundamental difference between them might be whether they were territories of independent nations before they became some kind of “states”.

The first 13 States of The United States of America started as independent nations and may still be very close to being independent nations, while the modern “states of the United States” may be more like territories or administrative districts.  If this speculation is roughly correct, the people of the States of the Union may have standing to claim individual sovereignty.  The citizens of the “states of the United States” are deemed individual subjects of the Congress and/or federal government.

My speculation seems (to me, at least) to be consistent with the Hooven court’s observation that the “areas” that were “first brought under the control of Congress” started out as territories which were later “organized into states of the United States”.   I.e., some or all of the “territories” became “states of the United States” where the people were not individual sovereigns.

But, maybe, maybe, the “areas” that did not start as territories but instead began as independent nations (like the original 13 States, plus Texas and maybe Hawaii) could not be “ultimately organized” into “states of the United States” and might still be presumed (or at least argued to be) “States of The United States of America” (the perpetual Union).   If so, the people of those States that started as independent nations might have better standing to claim individual sovereignty.

Maybe.

 

Seventh, I’m always wary of the term “collective”.  Did the Hooven’s third definition of “United States” define a “collective” (noun) in the sense of all collectivist political systems (like communism, socialism and democracy)?  Or did the Hooven court merely use the word “collective” as an adjective meaning something like “associated” or “assembled”?

The actual text in the Black’s 4th definition of “United States” (“collective name”) uses “collective” as an adjective rather than a noun.   So does the Supreme Court’s text.

Still, the Hooven case was decided in A.D. 1945 when the idea of communism was already gaining ground in the world and deemed a threat to the American people.  Therefore, the term “collective”—no matter whether it was used as a noun or adjective—would probably be “politically incorrect”.

So, it strikes me as odd, even suspicious, that the Supreme Court used the term “collective” twice (even as an adjective) to describe the “United States”.  Couldn’t they find a synonym (like “associated” or “assembled” or even “incorporated”) that conveyed the same meaning but didn’t suggest that at least one definition of “United States” applied to a collective and a collectivist form of government?

 

•  I know that this will come as a shock to some of you, but government—including our “honorable” courts (gasp!)—is largely a criminal enterprise—a “necessary evil” to some, but an evil nevertheless—bent on stealing the people’s wealth, rights and powers and keeping that booty for itself and/or whatever special interests government sometimes serves.

The fact that some two-bit, tin-horn shyster (even if he even graduated from some exalted law school like Harvard’s) wrote an opinion in A.D. 1898 that contradicts the revolutionary concept of individual sovereignty that animated the American Revolution a century earlier, proves nothing other than the People’s ignorance and indifference to their own  liberties and best interests.

Wong Kim Ark is an interesting opinion, but all it proves is that on a particular day and time some shysters on the Supreme Court who favored big government wrote an opinion that disfavored the concepts of individual sovereignty and, therefore, limited government.

 

•  Most people who follow this blog distrust the government. And yet, many of you persist in referring to court decisions as if they were God’s own word.  They’re not.  They are just the words of men who, being lawyers and law school graduates, are generally all trained, professional liars.  Their opinions are can be useful or damning.  They can’t be ignored. They should be read and understood.  But they should not be worshipped as prophecy.

Since the American Revolution, our government has evolved and become increasingly unconstitutional, corrupt and antagonistic to individual freedom.  No one seriously doubts that generality.

Our “honorable” Supreme Court routinely picks away at our rights and freedoms in order to enhance government powers–often under the pretext of a “balancing test” between the people’s freedoms and government’s interests.  But, when this country started, the government had no constitutional interests other than serving the people.  Today, it seems that the people have no “interests” other than serving the government.

 

•  When you evaluate the meaning of a court case, consider the decision’s date. Court cases like Chisholm (A.D. 1793) were written by men who’d fought in the American Revolution and had a good grasp of our revolutionary principles.  Court cases like Wong (A.D. 1898) were written by men who may have fought in the Civil War but had far less knowledge of, and respect for, the American Revolution’s principles.

The genius of the Constitution of the United States is that it’s an anti-government document.  It limits the powers of the federal government (Article 1) over the people/sovereigns of the States of the Union.  It provides for our rights to expose government corruption and even treason (1st Amendment freedoms of speech, press and assembly).  It provides for protections against government abuse in courts with the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.  (Interesting, hmm?  Half of the Bill of Rights were intended to directly protect us against abuse of judicial powers and oppression by the courts.  It seems that the Founders were extremely distrustful of the courts.)   The Constitution even provides the means for us to attack federal government if its despotism became unbearable (2nd Amendment).

We have constitutional “checks and balances” and guarantees of three branches of government—all designed to protect us from what the Founders knew would be our own government’s inevitable determination to overpower the people, destroy their rights and reduce them to servitude and bondage and freely engage in treason.

 

•  It is the nature of every government the world has ever known to obsessively seek more power at the expense of its people. The Founders tried to protect the American people against our own government’s inevitable obsession with acquiring more power and control by reducing the people to subjects.  Wong Kim Ark is simply another manifestation of the government’s war against the people, against their freedoms, liberties, and even claims of individual sovereignty.

Unfortunately, the American people (and people in general) are less interested in their freedoms than they are in free lunches.  So long as government can provide free lunches, most people will merrily follow government and abandon their freedoms.  It’s human nature.  It’s also a tragic flaw.

But there’s always a remnant of malcontents who understand that government is not “here to help us” but is, instead, here to oppress us.  They understand or at least dimly suspect that the principle enemy of every people is their own government.  Such malcontents hang out on blogs like this one, read books that focus on ideals rather than “How To Make More Money” and once in a great while, even succeed in overthrowing a government (as in the American Revolution), resisting their own impulse to oppression, and establishing a government that (however briefly) actually seeks to serve rather than rule its people.

The Chisholm vs. Georgia case (A.D. 1793) was written in an era when the American Revolutionaries still held power in our federal government and worked to serve the people and protect their freedoms.  Wong Kim Ark (A.D. 1898) was written in an era where the government was populated by a bunch of bureaucrats and big-government advocates who, in their hearts, dismissed the concepts of individual liberties and individual sovereignty as quaint, even dangerous relics of the past that were contrary to the natural order of things.  They deem that natural order to be a world where government doesn’t serve—government rules.

If you’re going to understand Chisholm vs Georgie and Wong Kim Ark, you need to pay attention to their historical context.  And don’t forget that all lawyers and judges are trained, professional liars.  You shouldn’t automatically give any court opinion any more respect than you’d give to the text of a known, pathological liar.   Some of their opinions are brilliant.  Others are treasonous.  Don’t automatically assume that every Supreme Court opinion is brilliant.  Expect to see more lies than truths.  Those lies may be skillfully concealed, but they’re usually there.

Don’t think so?

Then tell me which “United States” you’re in right now, and which “United States” does the government presume you’re in?

I’ll bet that 99% of the American people can’t comprehend that question, let alone answer it.

Americans didn’t achieve that level of ignorance without the help of government in general and the courts in particular.

 
 

Tags: , , ,

92 responses to “Chisholm vs Georgia and Wong Kim Ark on Individual Sovereignty—Which Decision is more Believable?

  1. gary

    June 6, 2015 at 11:08 AM

    It seems pretty obvious that the Chislom decision was made in The United States of America, c.1777, and the Wong Kim Ark decision was made “within the United States” (TITLE 28, §1746), c.1871, which is located IN the District of Columbia, as a ‘Government’ FOR the District of Columbia (which is where the second 13th amendment and all subsequent amendments actually apply, NOT in the several states of the Union), which is the venue all Americans have been led to believe is where they actually live, in spite of it being a FROEIGN nation-State to the several states of the Union.

    As you point out, Alfred, it all depends on WHICH “United States” you exist in: the several states of the Union styled The United States of America (Articles of Confederation), or the “UNited States” of the Foreign-owned, private corporation created in the District of Columbia in 1871 as a ‘Government’ for the District of Columbia :

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

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

    Ain’t rocket science, just a well-concealed lie (Socialist Security form SSN-5), which gets sovereigns to check the little box on the form, under penalty of perjury, that states “US citizen”, and then sign the form, trading their ‘sovereignty’ in for a second-class ‘citizenship’ in a ‘democracy’ (socialism)/corporation……sad part is, that it is ALL “in plain sight” for all to see, but, like many slaves, they have become quite comfortable in their slavery (denial?) and fear the change that would once again, make them responsible for themselves and their own well-being, rather than sucking on the ‘public teat;m and letting GovCo make all their life decisions for them….watcha gonna do?….

    Nice article Alfred, as always… : )

     
    • Colin

      June 7, 2015 at 12:20 AM

      Your legal analysis is incompetent. I don’t say that to be rude, but to be honest. You don’t understand the things you’re citing. You might consider taking a class on the law; there are free online classes that would vastly improve your understanding. I know Coursera has some, and I’m sure the other online class companies do too.

      For example, the UCC is not a law. It’s a recommendation, designed to help states pass uniform commercial laws. Probably there are states that have enacted 9307, but so what? States can’t define what the federal government is. Even if they could, 9307 doesn’t do it. You have to read statutes in context to understand them. The location rules are there to help people navigating secured transactions figure out what laws apply and where they should go to file or search for records. There is a reason that you will not ever find a case citing UCC 9307 for the proposition that the US is the same thing as DC–it’s nonsense.

      Similarly, 28 USC 3002 is setting definitions that are relevant to debt collection procedures. Debt collection rules don’t define the limits of the United States, either. And again, even if they did, those rules aren’t defining the US as DC. They only apply to interpreting the operative statues inside that chapter, which is why that section starts with the words, “As used in this chapter…” If you want to find some legal significance to that definition, show us how the chapter works. The definition standing on its own has no legal effect.

      Ain’t rocket science…

      That’s true. But nonetheless it’s so hard for people who have their identity wrapped up in being the awakened few to put their fantasies down long enough to actually learn the law they claim to have mastered.

       
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 1:35 AM

        Colin,
        @ It’s not their job to answer nonsense letters. Another trip through exuberant fantasyland.”

        Dear Sir, Colin, Explain what the Court meant by the following

        “unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to determine his Federal Tax liability.” U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed.Supp. 182, Affirmed in,709 F.2d 1496.

         
      • Colin

        June 7, 2015 at 1:04 PM

        I’m not sure I can say it any more simply than the court did. The defendant could not escape his obligation to pay his taxes merely by exclaiming, as he did in that case, that he was not a “person” within the meaning of the law. Even if he insisted he had no tax liability, the IRS could calculate the amount owed by him, and he had to pay. In the excerpt you quoted, the court is identifying a possible exception: if the defendant legitimately weren’t a citizen of the United States (or United States of America, since there’s no difference) then he would not have that obligation. (I think he’d have a different obligation, depending on where he earned the money, but it depends on the facts of the case.)

        I see from googlign that the excerpt you cited is quoted, out of context, in a repository out-of-context citations. Do yourself a favor and read the actual decision if you want to understand it. Here’s the quote in slightly more context, including the whole paragraph:

        “Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Act of 1954, Title 26 of the United States Code, was enacted in accordance with Congress’ constitutional power to lay and collect an income tax. There is a tax imposed, in 26 U.S.C. § 1, on the income of “every individual.” No provision exists in the tax code exempting from taxation persons who, like Slater, characterize themselves as somehow standing apart from the American polity, and the defendant cites no authority supporting his position. Slater’s protestations to the effect that he derives no benefit from the United States government have no bearing on his legal obligation to pay income taxes. Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47, 44 S.Ct. 444,68 L.Ed. 895 (1924); Benitez Rexach v. United States, 390 F.2d 631 (1st Cir.), cert. denied 393 U.S. 833, 89 S.Ct. 103,21 L.Ed.2d 103 (1968). Unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability.”

         
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 4:52 PM

        Colin,
        @ >” I see from googlign that the excerpt you cited is quoted, out of context, in a repository out-of-context citations.”
        My DEAR Colin, What I SAW & what got my attention WAS, the court SAID, Unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability.”
        I don’t care if it’s in context, out of context, dicta, OR dictum, I took this to mean & give advice to ANY FUTURE defendants &/or Plantiff/Petitioner what he/she NEEDED to do to NOT be subject to the authority of the IRS to determine his/her federal tax liability.” Anyway I AM NOT a citizen of the United States pursuant to the 14th Amendment AND I KNOW YOU disagree. No matter. I do not have to appeal your decision because it has already been adjudicated IN MY FAVOR and the ‘gov-co DID NOT APPEAL to the S.Ct. of the United States. CASE CLOSED. For me anyway. You were OVERRULED, Judge Colin. Good try tho. :-) D heeeeeeee hawwwwww hehawhehaw HE HAW D

         
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 6:09 PM

        Colin,
        Friday, June 5th,2015, I got the entire case to come up. Today it will not, at least like it did Friday.
        What follows is what I got to come up today. United States District Court, D.
        Delaware.
        UNITED STATES of America and
        Richard J. Mozdziak, Revenue Officer,
        Internal
        Revenue Service, Plaintiffs,
        v.
        William M. SLATER, Defendant.
        Civ. A. No. 82-195.
        545 F Supp 179
        July 8, 1982.
        545 F.Supp. 179 Page 2
        545 F.Supp. 179, 50 A.F.T.R.2d 82-5353, 82-2 USTC P 9571
        (Cite as: 545 F.Supp. 179)
        [2] Internal Revenue 3053
        220k3053 Most Cited Cases
        Defendant’s protestations to effect that
        he derived no benefit from United States
        government had no bearing on his legal
        obligation to pay income taxes; unless he
        could establish that he was not a citizen
        of the United States, IRS possessed
        authority to attempt to determine his
        federal tax liability. U.S.C.A.Const.Art.
        1, § 8, cl. 1; Amend. 16; 26 U.S.C.A. §

        It is rather odd that the case came up Friday, without all of the rest of what is showing above

         
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 7:21 PM

        Colin, This IS what I SEE. It sticks out like a sore thumb to me. > Unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability.”
        I DO NOT believe “The Defendant” SAID that. I believe the Court SAID THAT. Anyway, anyone who says he/she IS the defendant LOSES AUTOMATICALLY. THIS IS something else he/she NEEDS TO KNOW, & WHY, & IF he/she is in a Court of Record he/she had better OBJECT to being called the defendant & KNOW WHY you are objecting. This is for appeal purposes. It’s TOO LATE to object in the appeals court.

         
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 7:37 PM

        Dear Colin,
        Re: the Benitez Rexach case, He WAS/IS a citizen of the U.S. per the 14th Amendment. The following should show WHY. The Court said, in pertinent part;
        Felix Benitez Rexach, hereafter taxpayer, a native-born Puerto Rican, became an American citizen by virtue of the Jones Act of March 2, 1917, 48 U.S.C. 731 et seq.

        Felix Benitez Rexach IS a person of, COLOR. Yes I KNOW, just more GIBBERISH. YEAH RIGHT. Nope, WRONG, on YOUR END.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 21, 2015 at 3:17 AM

        Mr.Colin, Esquire, aka Title of Nobility, prohibited by the 1787 Constitution IF it was still VLAID, which it AIN’T, you SAY, I see from googlign that the excerpt you cited is quoted, out of context, in a repository out-of-context citations. Do yourself a favor and read the actual decision if you want to understand it.

        OK Colin !!! Then the Court really meant, > Unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to determine his federal tax liability,&, of course this is something nobody can do as we will ignore the authority the accused uses because they are using early U.S. Supreme Court rulings made back in the dark ages & we are now in the enlightened age of Aquarius & know even better what the the founding fathers really meant & even more so than they thought they knew. SOooooo the IRS DOES possess authority to determine his/her federal tax liability regardless of anything the accused submits that allegedly is said to prove otherwise. Anything submitted allegedly saying the IRS does not have authority is frivolous, specious, spurious, irrelevant, immaterial, & without foundation & merit & will be sanctioned, via fine and imprisonment. It IS SO ORDERED.

         
    • Gene

      June 7, 2015 at 7:30 AM

      gary,
      @ > “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …”
      Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
      YES, & which also means, INFERIOR to, The PROPERTY of, & SUBJECT to OBEY ITS CREATOR, the 39th Congress and ALL who follow in the footsteps of the 39th Congress.

       
      • gary

        June 13, 2015 at 10:17 AM

        Gene, THAT would be the point…… ; ) near as I can tell, best NOT to be a “federal citizen”, which means NOT using that Birth Certificate (the corporate one the State sent you) as your identification, because it is NOT you, it is a corporation (Individual) created BY the State, as they can control corporations….as an ‘American National’ of one of the several states of the Union, they CANNOT control you….so, I’d be leaving that GovCo-supplied ‘ID” behind…. I did….. ; )

         
    • Lex Mercatoria

      August 22, 2015 at 3:28 PM

      United States didn’t come about in 1871, it was there from the beginning. “United States” is the name of both (a) territory ceded to, owned by, or otherwise a proprietary interest of The United States of America (said territory is NOT every square inch of American soil), and (b) the name of the temporary government ordained to govern said territory per the first sentence of the nation’s 3rd organic law, the Northwest Ordinance.

      The only place all their statutes, codes, regulations, ordinances & court rulings apply is on *their* land, not ours, and the law has been written this way ab initio. Conversely, as their own court rulings have clarified, the nation’s first two organic laws (still in full force and effect!), the Declaration of Independence & Articles of Confederation, do NOT apply on United States territory and therefore, by elimination (though their courts don’t say this), apply on the land of The United States of America where the vast majority of us live.

      Territorial jurisdiction folks–that’s all it’s about. There is no subject matter or in personam jurisdiction unless there’s first territorial jurisdiction. That’s the solution to our illusory legal problems: knowing who & where we are. This we learn by studying the nation’s organic laws.

       
  2. Happy

    June 6, 2015 at 11:11 AM

    Prostitutor: “Mr. Winter believes that the laws of THIS STATE do not apply to him”… only if I knew how to respond then… better late than never… thanks Alfred!

    …so, here are my two cents:

    http://lawofpeace.org/Affidavit.html

    Peace to you all!

    Happy

     
    • Colin

      June 7, 2015 at 12:03 AM

      Unfortunately your affidavit is worth rather less than two cents. The requirements for renouncing citizenship are set out in 8 USC 1481. You can do it via a declaration, but only if you make it to a diplomatic official while located in a foreign country. Renouncing your citizenship via an affidavit has no legal effect at all. You may consider your citizenship revoked, but the government doesn’t. (Interestingly, if your effort did have any legal effect, it would make you an undocumented resident, subject to whatever penalties apply to illegal aliens.)

       
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 3:16 AM

        Colin,
        @ “The requirements for renouncing citizenship are set out in 8 USC 1481”
        Colin, Presuming that the Poster, Happy, made that affidavit, My understanding of renounce IS, Give up something.
        I think you are 100% correct IF anyone WHO is a citizen of the U.S. desires to RENOUNCE that class of citizenship. HOWEVER, Happy, is NOT RENOUNCING ANYTHING. Happy, IS putting those who need to know, ON NOTICE of HIS POSITION/STANDING. WHY should anyone “renounce” anything he/she is NOT A PART OF?

         
      • Colin

        June 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM

        Random shouting and gibberish… is this another Ted account? If so, you need a hobby. If not, your question doesn’t change anything–if he’s just stating his position, it doesn’t give that affidavit any more legal effect. he’s a citizen by operation of the law, not his own opinion.

         
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM

        Colin,
        @ > Random shouting and gibberish…
        Well thank you Colin for answering. I presume you do not think I am a troll, at least yet. I use caps for emphasis only. ok, then you have said before that sometimes things we read, at times, do not mean what they appear to say & I must admit you sure got that right. SO,unless you consider this is a troll question, what did the Court mean by saying, ““unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to determine his Federal Tax liability.” U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed.Supp. 182, Affirmed in,709 F.2d 1496, AND, IF it means what it seems/appears to be saying, what in your opinion needs to be done, to establish that anyone is not a citizen of the United States? Thanks.

         
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 7:56 PM

        Colin,
        @ Random shouting and gibberish… is this another Ted account?
        palani said whoever does not have an account number, has no value. At least this HOW & WHAT I understood, palani, was saying. Anyway I do not know anything about any Ted Account. I also KNOW that to you, I don’t count for much, if anything.To me, there ARE some people who are of no account. I’m SURE you agree with that. I CAN count on this for sure. Death & JUDGMENT. BUT !!
        I will be judged by a RIGHTEOUS JUDGE. He may not accept me. I don’t know. But, whatever the outcome, it will be FAIR. I can count on that. Even if it’s adios amigo for me.

         
      • Adask

        June 8, 2015 at 6:00 AM

        The idea that there are “illegal aliens” implies that there are also “legal aliens”. For example, is a “non-resident alien” legal or illegal–or does he fall into some third (or fourth) category? Is there any class of “aliens” who legally don’t have to pay income taxes?

        When they’re arrested by the police, are “illegal aliens” (from Mexico) being charged with income tax evasion? If not, why not? Too many criminals (illegal aliens) to bother trying to enforce income tax laws? Too few resources for the IRS to enforce against the masses of illegal aliens? No deterrent effect? (I.e., you could imprison 1 million illegal aliens for income tax evasion and those incarcerations wouldn’t scare any of the remaining illegals into obeying the IRC.)

        Or could it be that the illegal aliens, though criminals or even invaders, have more freedoms than the average American precisely because there is no evidence that they are “citizens of the United States”? Is that why the federal government has apparently encouraged various states to provide drivers licenses and perhaps even So-So Security cards to illegals? If the illegals take the drivers licenses and SS cards, does that constitute sufficient proof that they are “citizens of the United States”? By taking those documents would the illegal lose some of their current, actual freedoms and become not only “citizens of the United States,” but also subjects of the state and federal governments who can be legally imprisoned for things like, say, not paying income taxes?

        If any of that were true, would it follow that any American who’s born into liberty in this country but subsequently takes a SSN, DL, bank account, credit card, etc., “voluntarily” creates evidence that he’s a “citizen of the United States” and therefore subject to paying income taxes?

        And finally, given that in the Hooven & Allison vs. Evatt case of A.D. 1945, the Supreme Court provided three (and never said there were only three) different definitions of the term “United States,” when the courts also declared that “citizens of the United States” are required to pay income taxes, to which of the several possible “United States” did the court refer–and how do you know?

        Could I be a citizen of one of those several “United States” but not of the other two?

        Could I be a “citizen” of one of those “United States” and be required to pay income taxes? But, if I were a “citizen” of one of the other “United States,” could be exempt from the requirement of paying income taxes?

        Which of the several “United States” has citizens who must pay income taxes? (I’d like to know, ‘cuz I don’t want to live there.) Which, if any, of the remaining “United States” have “citizens” who are not required to pay income taxes–I’d like to emigrate into that jurisdiction.

        What evidence is required to prove that I’m a “citizen” of the particular “United States” wherein I’m required to pay income taxes? What evidence would disprove that status? Is the court’s premise that I’m a “citizen” of the particular “United States” that’s obligated to pay income tax supported by evidence admitted into the case? Or is that status only a presumption vulnerable to my own sworn denial?

        I.e., if I knew which of the three “United States” required me to pay income taxes and I swore under oath that I was not a “citizen” of THAT particular “United States,” who would take the witness stand to swear that I was a “citizen” of that particular “United States” but not a citizen of a “United States” where the income tax was not compulsory? What evidence would my adversary have to supply to support his testimony that I am a “citizen” of the particular “United States” liable for paying income taxes?

        And what do you suppose the jury would think if they learned that there was an unknown number of “United States,” and maybe only one of those multiple “United States” required its citizens to pay income taxes?

        What do you suppose the jury would think if it came out in trial on the public record that the reason the defendant (and, by implication, the jurors) have to pay income taxes is because they have “voluntarily” subjected themselves to that requirement by signing applications for or actual documents like drivers licenses, So-So Security, bank account signature cards, or even used Federal Reserve Notes or even Zip Codes which created or supported the presumption that they were “citizens” of the particular “United States” wherein income taxes were mandatory?

        I’m not insisting that any of those applications, licenses and/or uses constitute evidence that a particular man or woman has voluntarily entered in the “taxable” “United States”. I’m simply saying that if there are several different varieties of “United States,” the “citizens” of at least one of them are subject to paying income taxes, and the “citizens of one or more of the remaining “United States” are not subject to paying income taxes. How do the courts distinguish whether I am in or out of the “United States” that requires its citizens to pay income taxes?

        Ohh, and again, what do you suppose a jury would think if they discovered that there are multiple “United States”–some of which impose income tax requirements and some of which do not?

        What do you think would happen if the public saw a court case and “official” record (not just some ol’ blog like this one filled with private conjecture and hypothesis) where these kinds questions were addressed as credible?

        The current income tax system is based on presumptions, public ignorance and lies. The internet will go a long was towards reducing ignorance, defeating presumptions and exposing governmental lies. How will the income tax survive that kind of exposure? I don’t think it will. I’d bet that, right now, people in the federal government are seriously considering how to do away with the IRS and the IRC and replace them with something like a Value Added Tax, point of sale tax system in a cashless society where all purchases are digital.

        Then, taxpayers wouldn’t be in position to ask questions about things like “citizenship,” drivers licenses, and which “United States” they were in. The only questions might be:

        “Do you want to eat?–then use the debit card provided only to ‘citizens’ of the [taxable] ‘United States’ and pay your tax, ‘citizen,’ at the point of sale.”

        “Do you want gasoline for your car?–Then use the debit card provided only to ‘citizens’ of the [taxable] ‘United States’. and pay your tax, “citizen,” at your point of purchase.”

        “If you want to ask questions, you’re free do so, but you’ll you won’t purchase any food or gasoline before you first voluntarily consent to be taxed as a ‘citizen’ of the [taxable] ‘United States’ (whichever one that might be).”

         
      • Happy

        June 8, 2015 at 9:03 AM

        Public Notice has force in Law… but, perhaps not in these banker’s courts… was hoping folks here would do the same, as if we want to “play this game”… we all need to be on one side…

        …ran as Public Notice three consecutive Tuesday in Statewide newspaper

        http://lawofpeace.org/Affidavit.html

        Peace!

         
      • Colin

        June 8, 2015 at 10:47 PM

        The idea that there are “illegal aliens” implies that there are also “legal aliens”.

        Yes. Resident aliens, such as citizens of a foreign country living here legally (i.e., with a green card). Yes, they pay taxes on money they earn here—it works about the same as US citizens. I don’t know the details. This category does not include US Citizens who claim not to be US Citizens because of their idiosyncratic reading of the 14th Amendment or other such nonsense that has failed in court. They’re still citizens. About the only way to actually renounce your citizenship is to leave the country and submit a formal renunciation to a US consular official, per the law.

        When they’re arrested by the police, are “illegal aliens” (from Mexico) being charged with income tax evasion? If not, why not? Too many criminals (illegal aliens) to bother trying to enforce income tax laws? Too few resources for the IRS to enforce against the masses of illegal aliens? No deterrent effect? (I.e., you could imprison 1 million illegal aliens for income tax evasion and those incarcerations wouldn’t scare any of the remaining illegals into obeying the IRC.)

        This is an example of good speculation. Logical, reasonable, sensible, and more or less correct. The simplest explanation is that it costs money to prosecute someone, and there’s no point in spending that money to prosecute someone with no attachable assets. Especially if, as you say, there’s no deterrent effect. (I think there’s more than you suggest, but not enough to make the expenditure worthwhile.)

        Or could it be that the illegal aliens, though criminals or even invaders, have more freedoms than the average American precisely because there is no evidence that they are “citizens of the United States”?

        This, and the entire chain of wild guesses that you built on it, is an example of bad speculation. Unsupported, illogical, inconsistent with easily observable facts, and seeming to serve no purpose other than your own gratification and amusement. Everyone needs a hobby, but you invested a lot of time in this house of cards. You’ve used bad premises to support rampant speculation upon rampant speculation, building a castle in the sky to no particular purpose that doesn’t survive even a cursory comparison to the real world.

        If the illegals take the drivers licenses and SS cards, does that constitute sufficient proof that they are “citizens of the United States”? By taking those documents would the illegal lose some of their current, actual freedoms and become not only “citizens of the United States,” but also subjects of the state and federal governments who can be legally imprisoned for things like, say, not paying income taxes?

        No. Having a driver’s license or SS card doesn’t make you a citizen. And you don’t need to be a citizen to be prosecuted for breaking the law. Ask FIFA.

        If any of that were true, would it follow that any American who’s born into liberty in this country but subsequently takes a SSN, DL, bank account, credit card, etc., “voluntarily” creates evidence that he’s a “citizen of the United States” and therefore subject to paying income taxes?

        If the Statue of Liberty were made of delicious chocolate, would it follow that the Washington Monument were full of ice cream? I dunno, maybe. What we know for a fact is that the Statue of Liberty is not, in fact, made of chocolate. There’s lots of evidence that it’s not, and no evidence that it is.

        Similarly, we know that it’s not taking a DL or SS card that makes someone a citizen. The requirements of citizenship are spelled out in the law. You can look them up, or speculate wildly about things that you know aren’t true—whatever floats your boat.

        And finally, given that in the Hooven & Allison vs. Evatt case of A.D. 1945, the Supreme Court provided three (and never said there were only three) different definitions of the term “United States,” when the courts also declared that “citizens of the United States” are required to pay income taxes, to which of the several possible “United States” did the court refer–and how do you know?

        That case, as I’m pretty sure you know, did not establish that there are three separate entities called the United States. There’s one United States. The literal words “united states” could also refer to a collection of the fifty states, which I think creates the linguistic confusion you’re amusing yourself with. But if there were actually three legal entities masquerading as one United States, again, we’d be talking about a massive conspiracy of literally thousands of politicians, judges, lawyers, professors, historians, and bureaucrats, for generations, sustaining this great secret without ever actually just plain old writing it down. It’s much more likely that the Statute of Liberty is made out of chocolate.

        Could I be a citizen of one of those several “United States” but not of the other two?

        There’s no difference, which is why you’ve been unable to muster any real evidence at all that there is such a distinction.

        What evidence is required to prove that I’m a “citizen” of the particular “United States” wherein I’m required to pay income taxes?

        The court will presume it based on your place of birth. If you were born in the US, within any state or DC, you’re a citizen, unless you’ve lost your citizenship through one of the actual, legal ways of doing so. (A self-published affidavit doesn’t do it.)

        What evidence would disprove that status?

        Evidence that you were born in a foreign country, or that your parents were consular officials of a foreign country when you were born in the US, or evidence that you renounced your citizenship from a foreign country, or evidence that you swore allegiance to a foreign power in a time of war. I’m not 100% sure about that last one, but it’s something like that.

        None of that would help you, though. If you are earning money inside the US, you owe federal income tax. It doesn’t matter if you’re a citizen or not.

        Is the court’s premise that I’m a “citizen” of the particular “United States” that’s obligated to pay income tax supported by evidence admitted into the case? Or is that status only a presumption vulnerable to my own sworn denial?

        It would normally just be a presumption. You could rebut it if you had good evidence. Your affidavit wouldn’t cut it, I don’t think—you don’t remember your own birth, so you can’t testify to it first-hand. You’d need an affidavit from someone who witnessed your foreign birth, or records proving it, or something like that.

        If you mean an affidavit about your theories about multiple USAs and shadow states and the whole giant silent conspiracy about this schizophrenic nation, no, nothing is vulnerable to that except boredom. It would have the same legal effect as an affidavit attesting to the chocolatey interior of the Statue of Liberty.

        What evidence would my adversary have to supply to support his testimony that I am a “citizen” of the particular “United States” liable for paying income taxes?

        None. Your evidence would include, presumably, that you were born in what everyone else thinks of as the USA. (I’m guessing, obviously, I have no idea where you were born.) It doesn’t matter what you believe about the giant super-conspiracy to hide states or territories or whatever—if you were born in what the real-world law considers a state, the court will consider you a citizen.

        But again, it doesn’t matter. You don’t have to be a citizen to be liable to pay income taxes.

        And what do you suppose the jury would think if they learned that there was an unknown number of “United States,” and maybe only one of those multiple “United States” required its citizens to pay income taxes?

        Probably “this guy is nuts.” But it wouldn’t come up—juries don’t hear jurisdictional arguments. Those go to judges. But again, it doesn’t matter—you don’t have to be a citizen to be liable to pay taxes.

        What do you suppose the jury would think if it came out in trial on the public record that the reason the defendant (and, by implication, the jurors) have to pay income taxes is because they have “voluntarily” subjected themselves to that requirement by signing applications for or actual documents like drivers licenses, So-So Security, bank account signature cards, or even used Federal Reserve Notes or even Zip Codes which created or supported the presumption that they were “citizens” of the particular “United States” wherein income taxes were mandatory?

        Why would the result in that case be any different than the other times people have brought such wacky arguments? They always lose, and they never win. At best you’re talking about a Cheek defense, and frankly the idea is so irrational I think it’d lose there, too—I think a jury would conclude this is the work of someone trying to create a justification for not paying taxes, rather than someone who’s legitimately confused.

        How do the courts distinguish whether I am in or out of the “United States” that requires its citizens to pay income taxes?

        Are you within the borders of the continental United States, that is, between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and Canada and Mexico? Or in Hawaii or Alaska? If so, you’re in the United States. There’s only one jurisdictional federal entity there, and you owe it taxes. Lots of people cheat on them, and some people who cheat on them try to come up with clever arguments to make their conduct seem more honest and forthright.

        What do you think would happen if the public saw a court case and “official” record (not just some ol’ blog like this one filled with private conjecture and hypothesis) where these kinds questions were addressed as credible?

        The public can see those cases right now. The Tax Protester FAQ is full of citations, or you can just google “tax protester cases” or “sovereigntist cases.” The people raising these wacky arguments always lose, because they’re incredibly, and incredibly obviously, wrong.

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 11, 2015 at 8:55 PM

        Colin,
        @ Unfortunately your affidavit is worth rather less than two cents
        THIS is probably true today in the LEGAL system, BUT, from its inception, & for many years, what was stated in an affidavit was accepted as THE TRUTH unless & until overcome by COUNTER evidence, and if overcome by counter evidence, the one who made the affidavit was found guilty of perjury which is a felony. TODAY, it works this way. “The affidavit would not TIE the trial judge’s hands. It will be UP TO HIM to sort out what constitutes properly admissible evidence and what should be rejected. SHOULD HE DECIDE to accept parts of the affidavit, it will still be up to him to decide what weight that evidence should be given.” < THIS is just the way IT IS.

         
      • Eddy Kitts

        June 22, 2015 at 1:17 AM

        Colin,
        @ Random shouting and gibberish… is this another Ted account? If so, you need a hobby
        Dear softheart, I was thinking about becoming a Lobbyist for a a hobby because everyone hires a lobbyist. Colin, I believe Yale Law Grads are far superior in “Law” understanding compared to Harvard Grads, & I TOO also believe that “GAY MARRIAGE” should definitely be between a man & a woman & palani thinks so too. Ain’t that right palani ? HAHHAHhahahahahaHAHHAHhahaha D

         
  3. gary

    June 6, 2015 at 11:20 AM

    oh, and I suppose I forgot the “Birth Certificate”, created by the federal STATE and issued to the corporate “Individual” by the federal States, which we all mistake for a ‘live birth’ certificate….the “Birth Certificate” (usually American Banknote Company or Northern Banknote Compnay) is for a STATE-created corporation, that exists “within the United States” (TITLE 28, §1746), which people are led to believe is them,, so they use that corporate identity for everything from school registration to driver’s licenses to marriage licenses (the birth certificate” that was supposedly ‘me’ was Northern Banknote Company, while my “Marriage Certificate” is American Banknote Company, as is my brother’s “Birth Certificate”), and, as of yesterday, I learned that in order to make a CASH deposit to an account in a bank, now you have to show GovCo ID ( based on the corporate individual), just to deposit cash in an account or make a cash payment for a bill, like a cell phone bill….hmmmmmm…… they’re desperate to reel you in……

     
  4. Joe L'Amarca

    June 6, 2015 at 11:39 AM

    BOY!!!!
    Mr. Adask read the U S Constitution and see if you can find the case of Chisholm Vs. Georgia . and then prove to me why it is an unconstitutional .
    If you are really good with the U S Constitution ! then tell me how many conflict that you can locate in the amendments that are in conflict with the U S Constitution .
    Hint ! in 1793 Chisholm was decided and in 1795 the 11th amendment was legalized ! now read Article 3 Section 2 of the U S Constitution , see if you can find ONE of the TWO conflict .
    All the above info . that the author has provided that is a blessing for the liars and the criminals in the black robe . Mr. Adask send me your email and I will respond proof and proto !!! Joe L’Amarca

     
    • Adask

      June 6, 2015 at 8:13 PM

      It’s clear that amendments to the “Constitution of the United States”–that is, amendments to the instrument that constituted/created the political entity called “United States” will amend something about that “United States”. But I wonder if amendments to the Constitution of the United States also apply to or within “The United States of America”–the confederation and perpetual Union created/constituted by the Articles of Confederation?

      I don’t have an answer for that question, but I wonder if amendments like the 11th apply to both “United States” (where government appears to deem the people to be subjects or even animals) and also to “The United States of America” (where the people were deemed to be individual sovereigns). Or, could it be that Amendments to the Constitution of the United States have no legal “authority” in relation to The United States of America?

       
      • Toland

        June 6, 2015 at 10:20 PM

        We find where the original U.S. Constitution applied by reading the last paragraph of that document. It was a nation in its 12th year of independence (since 1776)….

        “Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.”

         
      • Colin

        June 6, 2015 at 11:46 PM

        But I wonder if amendments to the Constitution of the United States also apply to or within “The United States of America”–the confederation and perpetual Union created/constituted by the Articles of Confederation?

        Obviously yes, because there is no legal difference between “The United States” and “The United States of America.”

        Or, could it be that Amendments to the Constitution of the United States have no legal “authority” in relation to The United States of America?

        They quite obviously do, because there is no legal difference between The United States and The United States of America.

        This is not at all hard to discern. If there were such a distinction, it would be the biggest news in American history. It would be a bigger deal than the Civil War (since that was a failed effort to divide the USA, whereas you’re positing a successful effort). Every major politician, judge, lawyer, law professor, historian, bureaucrat, political scientist, and high-level official would have to be in on it–many thousands of people. And yet, you would like to believe, this massive conspiracy churns along every day without ever writing down evidence of the massive secret split between the “US” and the “USA” (or the states and the State of the Union, or whatever).

        In the fantasy world you’ve created, no person in the know ever–ever, in the history of the country–decided to blow the whistle on this epochal news. No law professor decided to make his name by writing the treatise of the century explaining it. No politician sought coverage by talking about it. No lawyer tried to win a case with it. Nobody ever even used it to defend themselves from legal trouble.

        But a conspiracy of perfect silence is perfectly impossible. Especially one as huge as you want to believe exists. Moreover, even if it did exist, it would fail if it was completely silent. If this legal dichotomy were real, it would have to be written down and made part of the law–through statue or written case law–to ever have any effect in the real world.

        You’re trying as hard as you can to believe in an elephant in the room–one that’s invisible, leaves no footprints, makes no sounds, and is completely undetectable. It’s not even possible that the elephant exists, it’s just completely obvious that it doesn’t.

        Do you think your attempt to believe in these massive conspiracies is related to what you talked about on your radio show, that it feels good to be someone “in the know”?

         
      • Joe L'Amarca

        June 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM

        Mr. Adask please send me your phone I will prove to you that if the 11th amendmend has two conflict in it . I understood J F K speach very well when he spoke at Columbia University he was muderd ten days later . That put me on a research course on three subjects ! Our People , our nation , and our wealth .
        I one that through U S Constitution study’s have discovered whom the secret society is right under your nose in the eleveth amendment ! the federal mob .or call it the criminals in the black robe known as the judicial branch , if you send me your number I will prove to you and we will help millions to save it all ! thank you .

         
      • Adask

        June 10, 2015 at 11:31 AM

        I don’t have a conventional telephone or telephone number. I use Skype. Do you have Skype?

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 19, 2015 at 12:39 AM

        Adask,
        @ “The article starts with a conflict over the concept of individual sovereignty as viewed by the Supreme Court in the Chisholm vs Georgia case of A.D. 1793 and the Wong Kim Ark case of A.D. 1898:”

        President Andrew Johnson, said,”All this legislative machinery of martial law, military coercion,and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other”.

        That PURPOSE set the wheels in motion, from its inception.The “unseen instigator” of this “purpose” has been around to see that the purpose & the end result is handled “appropriately”.
        As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. This is also why the difference in the opinions rendered in Chisholm & Wong Kim Ark.

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 30, 2015 at 7:01 AM

        @ If any of that were true, would it follow that any American who’s born into liberty in this country but subsequently takes a SSN, DL, bank account, credit card, etc., “voluntarily” creates evidence that he’s a “citizen of the United States” and therefore subject to paying income taxes?

        I firmly believe this just as you say, no doubt whatsoever !! However,it seems to me you do not like the term/word Citizen in any manner shape form or fashion AND this is VERY understandable.BUT Originally, IF you were a Citizen of the State of Texas you would not be a Citizen of ANY OTHER State in the Union. BUT !! you would still be known as a Citizen of the United States & ALSO ONE of the Sovereign People of “THIS” United States. It just was not said, or written, Citizen of ONE of the United States.There ARE EARLY Court cases that say this verbatim,e.g,, A Citizen of the United States MEANS a Citizen of one of the several States. Anyway, it really doesn’t matter anymore what anything MEANT.Things MEAN today what the powers that be SAY they mean. I believe your “Creed” document says more than enough anyway. FACT IS, the way things ARE, I believe you will accomplish MORE by what you say in your “Creed” document than arguing why you are not a 14th Amendment “FEDERAL citizen” because the INDOCTRINATED Judges, et.al. today ONLY SEEM to know of ONE & ONLY ONE kind of citizen & that IS the 14th amendment citizen. I FIRMLY believe if I tried to do today whatt worked 15 years ago, It WOULD NOT FLY TODAY. I also FIRMLY believe that if there is not a supreme being to intervene in the ways of this world we can just bend over & FIRMLY KISS OUR BUTTS GOODBYE. I AM SERIOUS !!

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 30, 2015 at 7:08 AM

        Re: LIBERTY !!!
        This speech was delivered by Judge Hand, often called the “tenth justice of the Supreme Court”, in Central Park , NYC.
        Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.

        DOES ANYMORE NEED TO BE SAID ?!?!?

         
      • Joe L'Amarca

        July 8, 2015 at 12:33 AM

        I am seventy years of age and not very good at writing , but I am the best at the U S Constitution and the conflicting amendments .
        If you call me and I know that you are a good writer I guarantee You that you will be happy that you did . Now You have my email so send me your phone number or You call me I am sure that I sent it to you before and if you dont I can send it to you , and I don’t need to be confined here at home answering a lot of calls .
        Remember ! the U S Constitution is the most powefull instrument ever written on the face of the Earth for guaranteeing peace and tranquility and human rights , ask JFK or Martin Luther ! its the federal mob. that needs to do their job for the one world commanders ????

        Joseph L’Amarca

         
      • Joe L'Amarca

        July 8, 2015 at 3:51 AM

        the proposal that was rejected was/is the 11th amendment because it was in conflict with Article 3 Section 2 of the articles of confedaration = first conflict .
        second conflict was in Article 5 of the articles of Confedaration = as time and mode of proposing the amendments .
        Those are the first two conflict and the criminals in the black robe gave themselves blanket authoraty over the U S Constitution wich they trully have fooled all the people that are ignorant of the U S Constitution .
        Now mr. adask based on that alone We the People have become Victims of the justice = (just us ) department or Lawless society and if you want to know more violations/conflicts email me .

         
  5. fawnmeadowsmc

    June 6, 2015 at 11:45 AM

    Great Post!

     
  6. Anthony Clifton

    June 6, 2015 at 2:38 PM

    …and I thought Jesus is the King of “our” government…

    http://israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/THEBIBLE.htm

    some have difficulty addressing the previous false assumption

    http://www.aboutscotland.com/stone/destiny.html

    manufactured by the lie factory,

    http://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/papers-of-ambassador-james-g-mcdonald-record-rise-of-nazism-to-creation-of

    which is owned by the “money changers” –

    who Hate Jesus….as a “BBaaad Faith”…religion

     
  7. Hank Albertson

    June 6, 2015 at 3:00 PM

    Indeed, if one looks at 28 USC §1746, there is a United States and a United States of America. The United States of D.C. (US of DC) is described at 26 USC §7701 (a) (9) & (10) and UCC 9-307). Additionally, all of the fake courts I have had contact with refuse to identify their UNITED STATES, LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF OREGON, OR, 97630, the fictional this state and in this state, and refuse to deny they are agents of foreign principals. IRS has refused to respond to my query, “Who or what is the HANK ALBERTSON you send mail to, is it me the living man on the land of the United (Union) States of America, and do I, said living man, have any reporting or tax payment duties?” Therefore, I have not paid taxes since 1994. I can be contacted at hankalbertson at yahoo dot com.

     
    • Colin

      June 6, 2015 at 11:53 PM

      If you actually read those statutes, you’ll see that they don’t establish any difference between the United States and the United States of America. Legally, those are just two different ways of referring to the same thing. Sec. 1746 uses them both, but not in any way that indicates they’re different. And contrary to what you wrote, sec. 7701 explicitly defines the US as more than just DC.

      IRS has refused to respond to my query

      It’s not their job to answer nonsense letters.

      Another trip through exuberant fantasyland.

       
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 6:10 AM

        Colin
        June 6, 2015 at 11:46 PM
        @ Do you think your attempt to believe in these massive conspiracies is related to what you talked about on your radio show, that it feels good to be someone “in the know”?
        Does it make you feel bad that you believe you ARE someone in the Know?

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 11, 2015 at 9:06 PM

        Colin,
        @ Another trip through exuberant fantasyland.
        RIGHT !! Troll troll your common law boat gently UP the stream. Colin is here to let you know it’s all a fantasy dream. :-) D
        Ain’t that Right Colin? :-) D

         
      • gary

        June 13, 2015 at 10:50 AM

        Colin, Why would those statutes “establish a difference between the United States” (a federal corporation, located IN the District of Columbia, as a Government FOR the District of Columbia in February of 1871) and The United States of America, a SEPERATE nation, a Union of several states, created 100 years earlier by the Articles of Confederation, when it has NOTHING to do with that Union, and can write statutes ONLY for itself?

        It would seem you are suggesting that the United States, which exists clearly IN the District of Columbia, has some ‘authority’ to write “statutes” (corporate rules) that would somehow magically have force and effect in the several states of the Union…..that would be the very delusion GovCo created and markets itself for, and you seem to be a big-time investor in that illusion…..ALL of their “codes” state clearly that they are territorial, that they apply In the District of Columbia or territories ceded by the States (that would be federal States, not ‘several states of the Union’ ‘states’, so what would lead you to believe they have ANY authority whatsoever to write statutes, codes, acts, or any other kind of corporate regulation that would have ANY force and effect in the several states of the Union, other than over their own “federal citizens” (don’t want to be one of those)?

        Does France write laws regarding the difference between it and Brazil? or Spain?….probably not, so why would two SEPERATE nations, The United States of America, (several states of the Union), established by the Articles of Confederation in 1777, be subject to ‘laws’ of a separate nation-State, the UNITED STATES, created almost 100 years LATER, in a place NOT even IN the several states of the Union, just because it has an intentionally deceptive, similar name (but NOT the same)?

        That would seem to be using some other country’s ‘laws’ as an ‘authority’ to define your own, separate country’s existence … I ain’t no rocket scientist, (well, actually, I am), but that don’t make no sense to me…..unless, of course, you can maybe show me in the ‘laws’ (that would be the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation) of The United States of America, where it say it will defer all future ‘authority’ to some ‘future’ federal corporation, yet to be named, created outside of The United States of America, on some yet-to-be-determined future date…..

         
  8. Henry

    June 6, 2015 at 3:41 PM

    Q: Why is getting a citation of a relevant dictionary definition of “sovereign” or “sovereignty” like pulling teeth from those who claim any individual has ever been sovereign in any country called the “United States” or similar?

    A: Because, whenever a dictionary definition of “sovereign” or “sovereignty” is introduced in evidence, it becomes immediately obvious that the individual was never intended to be sovereign in American law, and the whole “individual sovereignty” campaign instantly implodes.

    Example 1. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition:

    SOVEREIGNTY. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived… The power to do everything in a state without accountability – to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.

    Example 2. Barron’s Law Dictionary, 2010:

    SOVEREIGN that which is preeminent among all the others. For instance, in a monarchy, the king as sovereign has near absolute power, while in a democracy, the people have the sovereign power. Blackstone, the eighteenth century legal theorist, defined sovereign power to mean “the making of laws.” In ancient England, the king’s word was law, in today’s democratic governments, the law-making function has been taken over by representative bodies such as Congress. Other incidents of sovereignty in addition to law-making power are sovereign immunity, which prohibits lawsuits against the sovereign without its permission, and eminent domain, which allows the sovereign to take private property and put it to public use.

     
    • Adask

      June 6, 2015 at 7:16 PM

      What was the definition of, and requirements to be a “sovereign” in A.D. 1776?

      We are engaged in a war wherein our government is determined to expand its powers until they are unlimited. To achieve its objective, government is doing all it can to reduce us from the status of individual sovereigns to subjects and even animals. The war is being waged, in part, in the definitions of words found in court cases and law dictionaries.

      If you don’t see that ongoing war between the people and the government, if you can’t see that that war is being fought in part by changing the meanings of words and expecting today’s public to suppose that yesterday’s words had today’s meanings, I don’t think you can fully understand the nature of the political and spiritual war that’s been going on in this country since its inception.

       
      • Henry

        June 7, 2015 at 2:51 PM

        > What was the definition of, and requirements to be a sovereign” in A.D. 1776?

        The answer to your question is in the comment you replied to: Blackstone, the eighteenth century legal theorist, defined sovereign power to mean “the making of laws.” (Barron’s Law Dictionary)

        William Blackstone was the foremost legal scholar for colonial America. It’s likely that every one of the Founders owned his Commentaries on the Laws of England. It’s a virtual certainty that they all had access to a copy.

        Wikipedia: The Commentaries are often quoted as the definitive pre-Revolutionary source of common law by United States courts. Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States quote from Blackstone’s work whenever they wish to engage in historical discussion that goes back that far, or farther (for example, when discussing the intent of the framers of the Constitution).

        Now, having established that the late 18th century understood “sovereignty” to include “the making of laws”, where do we see the Founders intending anyone to be sovereign, i.e. make law, in his individual capacity?

         
      • Toland

        June 8, 2015 at 1:42 PM

        @Henry

        Searching the internet for info on this William Blackstone you mention, a few results from this very blog turned up. Someone in November of 2013 was, like you are now, asking fellow commenters for a dictionary definition of “sovereignty” that’s consistent with supposed “individual sovereignty” in American law.

        Also, like you are now, this commenter was asking the “individual sovereignty” campaign to square their notion with Blackstone’s definition of sovereignty as “the making of laws”.

        Sure ’nuff this commenter in 2013 got back a combination of complete silence, attempts to change the subject, and fancy song-and-dance routines in reply – but not one responsive answer.

        So we see that a conspicuous hole in the “individual sovereignty” campaign is its inability to make sense in terms of any definition of “sovereignty” found in a law dictionary.

        The flaw is that fundamental, take note. Though it’s possible this is considered a problem only in the “real world”, where facts and law matter.

         
      • Adask

        June 9, 2015 at 3:51 AM

        First, who is the beloved “commenter” of A.D. 2013 who was so shockingly abused back in A.D. 2013? It wasn’t you, Toland. According to WordPress, your first comment on this blog was in February of A.D. 2014. Please say the “secret name” of the A.D. 2013 “commenter” and I’ll look up his comment to see what he said or asked.

        Second, in the past several years, I’ve written and published 1,717 articles on this blog. If I spent my time reading and responding to every comment, I would probably have published no more than 500. I don’t have the time, inclination or obligation to respond to every comment posted on this blog. Don’t imagine that my failure to reply to any comment on this blog is evidence of the comment’s brilliance.

        Third, I agree that the fundamental power of the sovereign is to make laws. According to Article 6.2 of the Constitution, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land”. Given that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” it follows that the “author” of the Constitution must be the “supreme sovereign of the land”. Who is the author/authority that enacted and established the Constitution? Not Congress. Not the presidency. Not the courts. The author/authority behind the Constitution was, and is, We the People.

        The only question is whether We the People in the sovereign capacity of: 1) a multitude of individual sovereigns or, 2) as a single sovereign “collective,” when We ratified the Constitution in A.D. 1788 in conventions (not by State legislatures or any other agency of established government) held in each of the States of the Union.

        The answer to that question can be inferred from Noah Webster’s A.D. 1828 Dictionary which was published just 40 years after We the People authorized the Constitution. That was certainly one of America’s earliest dictionaries and was probably America’s first dictionary.

        Wikipedia describes Noah Webster as follows:

        “Noah Webster, Jr. (October 16, 1758 – May 28, 1843), was an American lexicographer, textbook pioneer, English-language spelling reformer, political writer, editor, and prolific author. He has been called the “Father of American Scholarship and Education.” His blue-backed speller books taught five generations of American children how to spell and read, secularizing their education. According to Ellis (1979) he gave Americans “a secular catechism to the nation-state.”[1]
        Webster’s name has become synonymous with “dictionary” in the United States, especially the modern Merriam-Webster dictionary that was first published in 1828 as An American Dictionary of the English Language. He was one of the Founding Fathers of the nation.[2]

        My copy of Webster’s A.D. 1828 Dictionary includes the word “collective” as an adjective and as an adverb, but does not define “collective” as a noun. The failure to define “collective” as a noun implies that there was no such thing as a singular, political “collective” (in the sense later seen in communism, socialism, and democracy) before A.D. 1828.

        Given that that: 1) the essence of sovereignty is the capacity to make laws; and 2) We the People ratified and thereby “authorized” the Constitution in A.D. 1788; it follows that 3) We the People acted in a sovereign capacity when we authorized the Constitution in A.D. 1788.

        Given that the Constitution is declared to be the “supreme law of the land,” it follows that We the People must’ve acted in the capacity of “supreme sovereign(s) of the land” when we authorized the “supreme law of the land”.

        It appears to me that We the People could’ve acted only as: 1) a multitude of individual sovereigns acting in conventions (rather than through governmental legislatures, etc.) or 2) as a single sovereign “collective“–when we ratified the Constitution.

        If so, it seems inexplicable that Noah Webster (one of the Founding Fathers, political writer, student of language) 40 years after the Constitution was ratified, published America’s first authoritative dictionary and neglected to define the word “collective” as a noun.

        If the American people had truly acted as a “collective” when they ratified the Constitution, they would probably have been the first nation to have ever done so. We would be the “fathers” (and “mothers”) of collectivism and thus communism, socialism, and democracy. We would certainly want to take credit for coining the word “collective” (as a noun) and the concept of “collectivism” since we invented them, and they were fundamental to our political system.

        Alas, Noah Webster neglected to define the noun “collective” in A.D. 1828. Gee, I wonder why? If we had been the first collectivist nation, doncha think the facts and law would’ve compelled Webster to explain the radically-new use of the word “collective” as a noun, and its completely new radical meaning to the American people?

        If the People had truly acted as a “collective” when they ratified the Constitution, don’t you think that Noah Webster would’ve been aware of that fundamental fact of the American Revolution? Don’t you think that Noah Webster would’ve defined the noun “collective” if such existed in A.D. 1828, let alone A.D. 1788?

        The fact that Noah Webster (a “Founding Father”) failed include the definition of the noun “collective” in his A.D. 1828 Dictionary (and, so far as I know, never corrected that omission) is powerful evidence that when We the People acted in our sovereign capacity to authorize the Constitution (“supreme law of the land”) we could not have acted as a “collective” (because such concept did not even exist in that era). That leaves only only possible sovereign capacity in which We the People could have ratified the Constitution–as a multitude of individual sovereigns.

        Does that argument fit into your “real world” where only the “facts and law matter”?

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 19, 2015 at 1:03 AM

        Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America? – Heritage Foundation
        Dec 3, 2010 … Sovereignty is a simple idea: the United States is an independent nation, … what
        we shall not do,” George Washington once wrote to Alexander …
        http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/12/why-does-sovereignty-matter-to-america – 78k – Cached – Similar Pages

         
      • Eddy Kitts

        June 22, 2015 at 1:36 AM

        Alfred Adask,
        @ If you don’t see that ongoing war between the people and the government, if you can’t see that that war is being fought in part by changing the meanings of words and expecting today’s public to suppose that yesterday’s words had today’s meanings, I don’t think you can fully understand the nature of the political and spiritual war that’s been going on in this country since its inception.

        I believe you are 100% correct. Isn’t it odd that so very few people SEE the truly important things. What is solid as a a rock to the extremely rare few is GIBBERISH to the MAJORITY. Colin will agree to this.

         
    • Ted

      June 6, 2015 at 8:12 PM

      HEnrY,
      @ SOVEREIGNTY. “The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority;………………………………”

      This DEFINES the CURRENT “gov-co”.

       
    • Toland

      June 7, 2015 at 12:33 AM

      Q: Why is getting a citation of a relevant dictionary definition of “sovereign” or “sovereignty” like pulling teeth from those who claim any individual has ever been sovereign in any country called the “United States” or similar?

      Now that you mention it, I’ve never seen them cite the definition of “sovereignty” they’re using, though they’ve been asked often enough. After all, we do need to know what they mean by this term if we’re to rationally evaluate their claims. So yeah, why stay mum about such a basic detail?

      A: Because, whenever a dictionary definition of “sovereign” or “sovereignty” is introduced in evidence, it becomes immediately obvious that the individual was never intended to be sovereign in American law, and the whole “individual sovereignty” campaign instantly implodes.

      Or maybe the “individual sovereignty” campaign refuses to define their terms because you have to be in Wonderland to properly appreciate “individual sovereignty”. Come on now, admit the possibility.

      “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” – Humpty Dumpty

       
      • Ira Misteree

        June 24, 2015 at 12:08 AM

        Toland,
        @ “………………………………………………………………..United States of America”
        Think there might be a slight remote possibility that those “United States” were situated/located on a Continent named “North America” & hence, The United States of America?

         
    • Russell Arms

      June 30, 2015 at 7:25 AM

      hEnRy
      @ William Blackstone was the foremost legal scholar for colonial America. It’s likely that every one of the Founders owned his Commentaries on the Laws of England. It’s a virtual certainty that they all had access to a copy.
      I THINK KING GEORGE III DISAGREED WITH WILLIAM BLACKSTONE TOO !!

      LIBERTY
      This speech was delivered by Judge Learned Hand, often called the “tenth justice of the Supreme Court”, in Central Park , NYC.
      Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.

      IF those who comprise Government do not have it written in their hearts to embrace & stand UP for liberty you can forget about any written documents to do it. GET IT ?!?!?

       
  9. Toland

    June 6, 2015 at 5:34 PM

    Al, of course you realize that the lines in Wong Kim Ark you quoted are themselves quotes from the North Carolina ruling in State v. Manuel from 1838 – i.e. well before the Civil War, the 14th Amendment, etc.

    Here’s that quote from State v. Manuel (1838) in full….

    Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens…. Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State… British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen… and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State…. The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

    Al, how do you reconcile this quote – where a State of the Union in 1838 says that sovereignty belongs to “the collective body of the people” – with your theories about sovereignty in historical context?

     
    • Adask

      June 6, 2015 at 7:07 PM

      I don’t reconcile it. But I do understand that the word “collective” used as an adjective is not the same as “collective” used as a noun. The terms “collective body” and “collective” are not necessarily synonymous.

      Webster’s A.D. 1828 Dictionary recognizes the term “collective” as an adjective and also as an adverb but does not define “collective” as a noun. Apparently, the modern concept of a political “collective” did not exist in the English language circa A.D. 1838.

      The meanings of words are usually multiple. More, the various meanings words written one or two centuries ago cannot be presumed to be identical to the words and definitions we read today. The words written in A.D. 1838 or A.D. 1898 cannot be presumed to have meant the same thing then as they do now.

      If it weren’t true that definitions are in a constant state of flux, Black’s Law Dictionary wouldn’t have published 9 significantly different editions in the past 124 years.

       
    • Henry

      June 6, 2015 at 7:54 PM

      > a State of the Union in 1838 says that sovereignty belongs to “the collective body of the people”

      Of course! No state of the union has ever, at any time, said anything other than, in so many words, “sovereignty belongs to the collective body of the people”. That goes for the federal government also, from 1776 to today.

      Toland, I know you’re a “facts matter” kinda guy, not a handwavy deceiver or a gullible rube. Therefore, all you gotta do to clear the smoke and see what’s what in this matter is look up the word “sovereignty” in the actual dictionary and note what this word actually means in THE REAL WORLD. I’ve given two examples above and encourage you to look it up in other dictionaries also.

      There are ZERO examples in American law of an individual being recognized as a “sovereign” according to the actual definition of this word in ANY law dictionary.

      Meanwhile, one more from the Supreme Court affirming the sovereignty of Americans in their collective capacity:

      “The sovereignty belongs to the people of the State, in their original character as an independent community, and the Legislature possesses those attributes of sovereignty, and those only, which have been delegated to it by the people of the State under its Constitution.”

      – Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 1837

       
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 2:57 AM

        @Henry
        @June 6, 2015 at 7:54 PM
        The 1787 Constitution was the true superior/sovereign Government & ANY legislation passed that conflicted with that document WAS declared unconstitutional. Many early S.Ct. cases confirm this TRUTH. NOW, this 1865 Constitution IS the supreme SO CALLED LAW of the land & NO legislation can be deemed unconstitutional BECAUSE it is the legislation ITSELF that comprises this “NEW” Constitution. It’s CALLED, “Appropriate” Legislation. This so called APPROPRIATE legislation IS that NEW Constitution. I STILL SAY it is ONLY for citizens of the U.S. & subject to ITS, not their, but ITS Jurisdiction. I welcome ALL feedback from anyone,TROLLS INCLUDED. :-) D

         
      • Eddy Kitts

        June 22, 2015 at 1:53 AM

        hEnRy
        @ a State of the Union in 1838 says that sovereignty belongs to “the collective body of the people”

        SOoooooo this means, e.g., if you OR I am walking up a city street & the Peace Officer thinks You OR I “looks suspicious” he/she will more than likely demand to see our ID state of approval documents & ask you OR ME questions, e.g. where are you going blah blah blah, BUT IF IT’S You & Roger & I walking up the street “together” then the Peace Officer will probably not interfere with our right to travel even though we all 3 look suspicious, because we are then considered to be acting/walking in a collective capacity? This does not make sense, I think collective capacity originally meant, ALL, & EACH & everyone that comprised the ALL, aka, the collective capacity.

         
    • Ted

      June 6, 2015 at 9:59 PM

      tOLanD, eT.aL.,
      @ > Al, how do you reconcile this quote – where a State of the Union in 1838 says that sovereignty belongs to “the collective body of the people”

      HOW do YOU & YOURS reconcile the FACT that it IS, HE, not THEY who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.” AND, reconcile THAT with THIS, > (a). “The People, THAT ENTIRE BODY CALLED, the State.” Well’s v. Bain 75 Penn. St. 39; and,
      State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 page 152, the Court said:
      (b). “The sovereignty has been transferred from one man (King George) to the collective body of the people and he who before was a subiect of the king is a citizen of the state” and,
      (c). “The people of this state, as the successors of their former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9, page 20, and,
      (d). Citizen, in American Law. “One of the Sovereign People.” Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393/404; Federalist #78; Penhallow v. Doan, 3 Dall. 54, 93; 2 Elliot’s Debates 94; Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267.
      How do YOU & YOURS reconcile ALL of THIS?

       
  10. Cody

    June 6, 2015 at 7:37 PM

    If I recall correctly, the first blow to individual sovereignty was recorded in Barron V. Baltimore 32 US 243 (1833). In this ruling the Supremes decided that the Bill of Rights did not restrict state action against individual rights. If that is true, why then would the word “state” or “states” even appear in the BOR at all?

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html

     
    • Gene

      June 7, 2015 at 6:51 AM

      Cody,
      @ If I recall correctly, the first blow to individual sovereignty was recorded in Barron V. Baltimore 32 US 243 (1833). In this ruling the Supremes decided that the Bill of Rights did not restrict state action against individual rights. If that is true, why then would the word “state” or “states” even appear in the BOR at all?
      Cody IF IF IF I am understanding your question, Those Bill of Rights applied ONLY to a Federal matter, NOT a State matter

       
      • Cody

        June 7, 2015 at 11:29 AM

        That’s what the 1833 court declared. If it’s true that the BOR was only intended to restrict federal action against citizens, then why would the word state ever appear in the Bill of Rights?

         
      • Cody

        June 7, 2015 at 11:39 AM

        “Most people who follow this blog distrust the government. And yet, many of you persist in referring to court decisions as if they were God’s own word. They’re not. They are just the words of men who, being lawyers and law school graduates, are generally all trained, professional liars. Their opinions are can be useful or damning. They can’t be ignored. They should be read and understood. But they should not be worshipped as prophecy.”

        Precisely, Mr. Adask, precisely.

         
    • Gene

      June 7, 2015 at 2:04 PM

      Cody,
      @ “That’s what the 1833 court declared. If it’s true that the BOR was only intended to restrict federal action against citizens, then why would the word state ever appear in the Bill of Rights?”

      I presume you mean the Article in Addition, aka Amendment 10. Section 10 of Article 1 was regarded as a Federal matter, at least that is how I read it.

      Based on the remainder of your message of June 7 @ 11:29 AM, you say, “Court cases should be read & understood.” I buy that, so why are you asking what the Court meant in Barron V. Baltimore? Who is worshiping Court decisions as prophecy? Who pays any attention to God’s own word anyway?

       
  11. palani

    June 6, 2015 at 7:57 PM

    “tell me which “United States” you’re in right now”

    I am in a drainage basin. Was born there in fact. They tend to call them watersheds now but the thought is the same. The below is the United States boundary as agreed to by King George and the United States. All except three segments are either rivers or highlands dividing river systems.

     
  12. Ted

    June 6, 2015 at 9:48 PM

    Original meaning & understanding of, Sovereign cases
    U.S. v. Susan B. Anthony, 24 Fed Case page 829, Case No.14,469
    Paul v. Virginia 8 Wall (75 U.S.) 168
    Ward v. Maryland 12 Wall (79 U.S) 418, 430

     
  13. Gene

    June 7, 2015 at 2:12 AM

    @ I am in a drainage basin
    palani u ol sweet thang. Precious Pearl, that comment drains the brain & creates Brain Drainage.
    :-) D

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 11, 2015 at 9:10 PM

      @Gene
      @June 7, 2015 at 2:12 AM
      @ :-) D

      :-) D

       
  14. Gene

    June 7, 2015 at 3:32 AM

    We the people do ordain & establish this Constitution for the United States of America, AND, Texas, AND all drainage basins contained therein. Done on the day of September 12th, in the year of our Lord, 1787 NOW I know whut goin on.

     
    • palani

      June 7, 2015 at 5:54 AM

      @ D.B. Cooper “We the people do ordain & establish this Constitution for the United States of America, AND, Texas, AND all drainage basins contained therein”
      Be sure and not miss the point. The constitution connects the people. The treaty(s) connect the land. There are no watersheds in any state and as far as I know I am the only people inhabiting a drainage basin.

       
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 6:25 AM

        palani,
        @ @ D.B. Cooper “We the people do ordain & establish this Constitution for the United States of America, AND, Texas, AND all drainage basins contained therein”
        Be sure and not miss the point. The constitution connects the people. The treaty(s) connect the land. There are no watersheds in any state and as far as I know I am the only people inhabiting a drainage basin.
        THANKS to you, my ID plate on my “mode of conveyance”,aka, Automobile, has, Drainage Basin, at the top, you know, where the “State” name is written, e.g. TEXAS, & under Drainage Basin, it is written, Near waterhole #4. Thaaaaaaats RIGHT. All this, thanks to you from it seems like a year or more back. I tellum U D Troof. Thanks again, palani. I betcha U still carry that 5 Dollar gold coin 2. D

         
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 5:26 PM

        palani, I forgot to say, that the 3rd line down on my “Homemade License Plate” as the Peace Officers call it, excuse me, “called it” HAHHAHhahaha, anyway it is written, > P-A-L-A-N-I. I wish I knew how to post a picture of it but I don’t know how to do that. Overall, I love yer werk. :-)

         
      • palani

        June 7, 2015 at 5:29 PM

        @ D.B.Cooper “Automobile, has, Drainage Basin, at the top, you know, where the “State” name is written, e.g. TEXAS, & under Drainage Basin, it is written, Near waterhole #4.”
        To be Autochton is to be sovereign.

         
      • palani

        June 7, 2015 at 5:47 PM

        @D.B.Cooper “anyway it is written, > P-A-L-A-N-I.”
        You did know that “palani” is Hawaiian for freeman?

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 12, 2015 at 12:23 AM

        palani,
        @ @ D.B.Cooper “Automobile, has, Drainage Basin, at the top,
        palani I have been so far down on the bottom for so long I don’t know what the top is. I am so far down when I look up I see the bottom. This is the only up I know. Well, one other UP. :-) D

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 12, 2015 at 3:36 AM

        palani,
        me & ol Ted & Red, & Nat & Gene, & “D B” Cooper are sumpin A-Yulse ain’t we? :-) D

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 12, 2015 at 7:03 PM

        palani,
        @ You did know that “palani” is Hawaiian for freeman?
        palani, I thought, when I first saw the username, palani, it had something to do with a Pineapple. Honest injun. No offense meant. I LOVE Pinapples and I love you too. I also love old pickup trucks, and,little baby ducks, & dogs & cats.BUT I HATE RATS & RAT-DROPPERS & REPROBATES.

         
      • Eddy Kitts

        June 22, 2015 at 6:53 AM

        palani,
        @ To be Autochton is to be sovereign.
        Really? wow. Well, Cream Puff I guess I AUTO have known that, but, I didn’t. Anyway, we do not have Autobahns to freely travel on even in a Fiat & NO !! I AM NOT fiaTING you ! D :-) :-) :-)
        SEE ! We have Interstates, which are a part of “this State/state”, & this is not a mis-state-ment. palani, how are them Sears & REAR-bucks pages holding out? HAHHAHhahahahheeeeehaww.

         
  15. Gene

    June 7, 2015 at 6:52 PM

    palani,
    @ You did know that “palani” is Hawaiian for freeman?
    Based on my research, Yes. I believed what I came across because it really did seem to fit you. Do me a BIG FAVOR & see if you can bring up the case of, U.S. v Slater, 545 F.Supp.182. Just the opinion of the Court. I do get it to come up today, but it includes comments. Friday, I got the case, opinion of the Court, & only that, which I liked, to come up, by going to Google Scholar. Today, Google Scholar WILL NOT bring the case up like it did on Friday. Why? I don’t know. Thanks palani. :-)

     
  16. Californian

    June 8, 2015 at 4:27 PM

    I am very sorry, i did not read everything here, as Adask spent a lot of time writing. If I missed something, forgive me.
    I am the government, i am self governing. Compare to the Declaration of Independence.
    Why do I care about opinions of some court, i was not there. I have no 1st hand knowledge.
    What I do know, is I am not bound to any government, but my own unless I contract for services.
    Anyone comes after me, cop, United States, The United States of America, IRS, fine, I accept on condition how you believe I am bound? Bring forth the contract, you wouldn’t come after me, unless we are bound, that would be fraud.
    Why do i care who they are? I should be more concerned who I am and that I don’t believe I am bound to any man or any government.

     
    • Henry

      June 8, 2015 at 6:14 PM

      > how you believe I am bound?

      You’re bound because you’re here. A certain entity, namely the people of the United States, claims to be sovereign over this land and is willing to back up that claim with force – up to and including nuclear weapons. So it’s not surprising that counterclaims of sovereignty, e.g. “individual sovereignty”, always fail in the court system operating in the name of the people of the United States.

      > Bring forth the contract

      No contract is necessary. Sovereignty is not based on contract. It’s the other way around. Contracts are based on (the law established through) sovereignty.

      Sovereignty itself is above the law, as it logically must be given that the sovereign is, by definition, the source of the law.

       
      • Eddy Kitt

        June 30, 2015 at 3:03 PM

        Henry,
        @ how you believe I am bound?
        Don’t know about you. However I am bound for the Promised Land. On Jordan’s stormy banks I stand And cast a wishful eye To Canaan’s fair and happy land Where my possessions lie I am bound for the Promised Land.

         
  17. Ultimate knowledge

    June 13, 2015 at 4:02 AM

    You may be missing the definition of United States being particularly described in the US Constitution as an area no more than ten miles squared (Washington DC) sceeded(sp?) for the seat of the federal govt and having unlimited , exclusive legislative and other powers over that area and other territories like Guam, Puerto Rico and others even sometimes described as ” States ” not states of the union. This “United States” definition is the 4th one u may be looking for and is the definition that one must have eyes to see to understand it. See Roberts? Supreme CRT judge in his opinion agreeing with the ACA as being constitutional because of the previous definition in the US Const. It appears US citizens are the ones born in DC therefore subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If u can put the pieces together in your mind be prepared to shit the bed. Don’t share this info as it could cause a shit storm once fully understood

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 14, 2015 at 12:44 AM

      Ultimate Knowledge,
      @ Don’t share this info as it could cause a shit storm once fully understood.
      RIGHT!! Shhhhhhhhh. we must by all means,keep this quite. FOAR SHOAR.

       
  18. Lemont Metoyer

    July 6, 2015 at 9:12 AM

    Doesn’t Hinkle vrs Hale mention both types of citizens, and basically acknowledge one has to be a belligerent claimant in person at the time to stay in the private and protect his private rights and remedies?

     
    • Dea Lawman

      July 6, 2015 at 2:05 PM

      Lemont Metoyer,
      @ Doesn’t Hinkle vrs Hale mention both types of citizens, and basically acknowledge one has to be a belligerent claimant in person at the time to stay in the private and protect his private rights and remedies?
      ALL Court decisions shortly AFTER the 14th Amendment, at least for the most part, slowly but surely changed the mindset of the Courts themselves. This is not easily detected. E.g.,IF anyone’s heart is in the right place there is no way he/she can read the Plessy v. Ferguson U.S. Supreme Court case & say it is not a fair & justifiable ruling. It, in my opinion, was a wonderful decision. BUT, later that case was overturned TOO. Now it is this simple. Since the Courts themselves cannot agree on what the “law” is,&/or means,e.g., 5 to 4,rulings HOW can we laymen know what the law means? Even IF we KNOW we are right. HAY-YULLS FORE.

       
      • Joe L'Amarca

        July 8, 2015 at 4:06 AM

        When you site case law you have agreed that the U S supreme court violated Article 3 Section 2 they took your rights away and gave you a priviledge back . As I stated in the above reply about the conflict and you should not except a case law that was decited from/a conflict contained in it .

         
  19. James Michael

    July 15, 2015 at 10:03 AM

    Conversation was great….I think making it all simpler, is the answer…. I’m a man with (in)unalienable rights….I am an idiot as far as your millions of pages of liaryer created trash (codes) goes and an act, not done by me is not my act…. I speak and write only vulgar Oxford English.
    No license for 8 years now and they all seem to avoid me like the plague, since I started collecting on that false arrest (4 years ago) last year for 150k. No court required, only filed an intent to sue, in my court, at the local federal court of record, as a man…. For 11 charges, including without limit, 7 felonies and 4 more minor wrongs done to me by the man with the sworn oath to me….65 years worth of charges (without the treason) and my evidence was overwhelming, as was the evidence of his acting maliciously….. Apparently he did not want to take the chance with a jury and settled privately….Kidnapping an innocent man, can be expensive….
    I agreed to no details, but next time ….that will not happen….
    I love the law…..
    The simple, real law, devoid of the traitors of the BARS, horsemanure, sophism and lies….

    Law is simple folks, not complicated like the liaryers frauding and scamming us out of our money, try to sell you…
    NO “cause of action”, the plaintiff has no jurisdiction to grant to the court…
    and has no CASE and is scamming and frauding you…
    and committing wrongs called treason and barratry.

    Maxim of Law:
    Actio non datur non damnificato.
    An action is not given to him who has received no damages.

    No damages to the claimant
    NO cause of action to support a case in court….

    damnum et injuria. Loss and wrong, the two elements which must exist in combination as essentials of a cause of action. 1AmJ2d Actions Section 70
    Ballentines Law Dictionary 3rd Edition

    The end is coming for these liars, extortionists and traitors….America is wakening…..
    12 families all near me aware and watching these felons and murdering psychopaths….
    and their treasonous, domestic enemy, buddies of the BAR….
    AND I stopped conversating with fictions years ago….I only conversate in reality….
    I’m sane you see…. :)

    Oh and Colin….Speak some Chinese (legalese) to me….I cannot understand a lick of it…..
    AND have no obligation to learn your mountains of utter tripe and random gibberish………

     
    • Allen Curtis

      July 16, 2015 at 5:37 AM

      James Michael,
      @ I speak and write only vulgar Oxford English.
      Well I’ll be a dirty bird.
      Sincerely, Jerry Byrd, aka, Allen Curtis

       
    • Allen Curtis

      July 16, 2015 at 5:43 AM

      @ Maxim of Law:
      @ Actio non datur non damnificato.
      @ An action is not given to him who has received no damages.
      Well sir, if damages & injury mean the same thing, the courts say we have injured the peace & dignity of the people & the citation writer &/or arresting “Peace” Officer, IS, the “Complaining witness”.

       
    • Allen Curtis

      July 16, 2015 at 5:47 AM

      P.S. @ Well sir, if damages & injury mean the same thing, the courts say we have injured the peace & dignity of the people & the citation writer &/or arresting “Peace” Officer, IS, the “Complaining witness”.
      SOooooooo how do we get an unbiased, non prejudiced jury when we have injured their peace & dignity? Answer is, you should have thought about that before you injured them.

       

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s