RSS

Administrative Law vs. “Show Me The Law!”

08 Sep

Rowan County is located in Kentucky.  Kim Davis is the Rowan County clerk who has repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has therefore been jailed by order of a federal judge.

Here’s a video of a Kentucky attorney, Michael Peroutka, explainting a constitutional defense for Ms. Davis at a rally.  He argues that she’s broken no law, because there is no law requiring her to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.  Yes, there may be court opinions alleging that Ms Davis must issue such licenses, but court opinions are not “law”–they are only opinions.

video    00:06:57

 

As Mr. Peroutka pointed out, Article 1 Section 1 of the federal Constitution declares, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . . .”  If all legislative powers are vested in Congress, no legislative powers are vested in the courts (or in the executive branch, which is currently famous for issuing executive orders that seem to have the force of “law”). That means that the judicial and executive branches of the federal government have no authority to legislate and “make” law.

If the only charges against Kim Davis are that she’s defined a court opinion and/or executive order, then she has broken no law and it’s wrong, fraudulent and illegal to jail her for breaking a law because there is no such law.

Mr. Peroutka’s Article 1 Section 1 defense is the best “show me the law” argument that I’d heretofore seen.

But it got me thinking.  Mr. Peroutka’s argument may be incomplete.  I began to realize why the “show me the law” demand (often used by “tax resistors” being tried for violating IRS law) is routinely ignored by government in general and the courts in particular.

In theory, the “show me the law” defense should work against any charge that’s based on court opinions or executive orders–provided that you understand the significance of administrative law and make sure that your case is heard in a judicial, rather than administrative, court.

The “show me the law” defense probably won’t work under administrative law.

Why?

Because, at bottom, the “show me the law” argument is based on the principle of “separation of powers“.  This principle confides various powers exclusively to only one branch of government.

For example, The Constitution of The State of Texas expressly declares:

“ARTICLE 2. THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT

“Sec. 1. DIVISION OF POWERS; THREE SEPARATE DEPARTMENTS; EXERCISE OF POWER PROPERLY ATTACHED TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS. The powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are Legislative to one; those which are Executive to another, and those which are Judicial to another; and no person, or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted.” [emphasis added]

Under “separation of powers,” the judicial court’s opinions can’t be law since “all legislative power” is vested in the Congress and therefore no legislative power is vested in the judicial branch.

But, as I’ve pointed out previously in several articles that touch on administrative law, according to the article on “administrative law” in American Jurisprudence 2nd, there is no separation of powers under administrative law.  Under administrative law, all three fundamental powers of government (legislative, executive and judicial) are unified under a single authority.  This unification implies that, under administrative law, all legislative powers are shared by all three “branches” of government and the judicial opinions and executive orders are just as much “law” as the legislation enacted by Congress.

All of which implies that under administrative law, you can be jailed for violating a judicial opinion or an executive order and the “show me the law” defense will be ineffective and futile.  That implication is consistent with our current state of affairs.  As if we don’t have enough trouble with legislators making idiotic laws, the courts are also famous for “making law” and President Obama is burying this country under a haystack of executive orders.

In fact, while I wouldn’t yet bet on it, it is conceivable that, insofar as the police are deemed to be part of the administrative law government, an order by a cop might carry the same authority as a “law” enacted by the legislative branch of government.   Interesting conjecture, no?  Could it be that under administrative law, the cops don’t merely enforce the law, they make it?

Administrative law is the cornerstone of big government and the police state.

How might you avoid being subject to administrative law?

I raised an argument against being subject to administrative law the A.D. 2006 case where I raised a Freedom of Religion defense against allegations prosecuted by the Attorney General of Texas.  Most of that defense was based on the argument that I am a man made in God’s image and therefore can’t be an animal subject to the drug laws that apply to animals.  But I also raised a defense against being subject to administrative law.  The court never commented on either line of defense, but (after investing six years and nearly $500,000 in pre-trial investigations and hearings) the Attorney General’s office did simply drop the case and stop prosecuting.

If you’re curious about my defense at that time, you can go to the case at the previous link, and search for the word “administrative”.  You’ll see about 9 instances where I used that term at various points in my answer.  Taken together, those instances will illustrate my vague defense against being subjected to administrative law and administrative process.

Today, my defense against administrative law would be more sophisticated. Today, I’d argue something like this

  1. Article 1 Section 1 of The Constitution of The State of Texas declares in part that, “All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. . . . .”
  2. Based on Article 1 Section 1, The Constitution of The State of Texas is a trust indenture.
  3. The People of The State of Texas are the beneficiaries of that trust indenture and are entitled to whatever benefits that Constitution provides.
  4. One of those benefits of The Constitution of The States of Texas is “Division of Powers” (separation of powers) declared at Article 2 of that Constitution.
  5. I am one of the People of The State of Texas.
  6. I am a beneficiary of The Constitution of The State of Texas.
  7. I am entitled to the benefit of “division of powers” (separation of powers).
  8. Administrative law combines all three fundamental powers of government (legislative, executive and judicial) under a single authority.
  9. Administrative law unifies–rather than divides/separates–the three fundamental powers of government.
  10. Administrative law violates the principle of “division of powers”.
  11. By unifying the three fundamental powers of government, mandatory administrative law injures me by depriving me of one or more of the benefits of The Constitution of The State of Texas, including but not limited to my rights to “division of powers” and substantive due process.
  12. I do not consent to waive my right as one of the People of The State of Texas to the benefit of “division of powers”.
  13. I do not consent to be subject to administrative law and/or administrative process.
  14. If you hold public office under The Constitution of The State of Texas, you are a fiduciary charged with administering that trust.
  15. If you have taken an oath to support and/or defend The Constitution of The State of Texas, you are a fiduciary for that trust.
  16. As a fiduciary for The Constitution of The State of Texas trust, you are obligated to administer that trust for my benefit and ensure that I receive benefits such as my right to “division of powers” (separation of powers).
  17. If you are not acting in the capacity of a fiduciary under The Constitution of The State of Texas, you have no authority over me under administrative law unless I consent to that authority.
  18. I deny that I have ever knowingly and voluntarily consented to be subject to administrative law.
  19. If you are not bound by office or oath to administer The Constitution of The State of Texas on my behalf, I deny that you have any administrative authority over me in this matter.
  20. As one of the People/beneficiaries of The Constitution of The State of Texas I demand that any claims or litigation against me proceed and be heard only in a judicial court under the judicial department of government.

I’m just spit-balling here.  If I were really facing prosecution in some administrative tribunal, I’d undoubtedly tweak, tighten and expand the previous line of defense.  For example, I’d want to include reference to the 6th Amendment which declares in part that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” against him.  My right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against me is just another way of saying I have a right to demand that they “show me the law”.

Nevertheless, I think you get the basic idea: I believe that, properly presented and argued, the constitutional right to “division” and/or “separation” of powers should defeat the presumed authority of administrative law.

Once you’re out from under administrative law, the demand that government “show me the law” may take on real authority and effectiveness.  Until you escape administrative law,

As for Kim Davis (the clerk imprisoned for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays), if the previous analysis is roughly correct, even though she has violated no known legislative law, she has probably been “lawfully” imprisoned under administrative law.  She will remain in prison and her imprisonment will be deemed lawful unless she can devise a defense that proves that she is not subject to administrative law.

 

 
 

Tags: , , , ,

76 responses to “Administrative Law vs. “Show Me The Law!”

  1. Toland

    September 8, 2015 at 5:40 AM

    If the judicial branch of the federal government has no authority to make law, what does it mean when decision of the US Supreme Court are said to have “the force of law”?

     
    • jody

      September 8, 2015 at 6:06 AM

      It would seem to me Ms. Davis will have a difficult time arguing she is not subject to the administrative laws of the administration she is under contract with as a means of employment .

       
      • Colin

        September 8, 2015 at 10:43 PM

        Ms. Davis wasn’t accused of any violation of “administrative law.” Violating a court order is a statutory offense.

         
    • jody

      September 8, 2015 at 6:23 AM

      I had never considered the notion supreme court decisions were not actualy law until reading Alfred’s article above. In truth they are only administrational decisions for enforcement within the boundaries of their administration. So how would they carry the “force of law ” ? The same way they have bamboozled an entire country into presuming we are subject to them , simply by our presumption that we are subject to them , and by our being forced to endeavor in the realm of occult proceedings and language when we are unlucky enough to be strong-armed by their system . In short , the supreme court decisions have force of through the sorcery implemented by the cult of Saturn which is merely a euphemism which has been used to replace the name of satan ! Black robes, occult language and proceedings , “official ” state seals of sorcery atop of each presentment issued by them , it is all quite intimidating , even when you come to realize it is merely racketerring and extortion ,or as Paul so concisely explained ,Ephesians 6:12 RSV

      http://www.biblestudytools.com/rsv/ephesians/6-12.html

      12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

       
      • Colin

        September 8, 2015 at 10:49 PM

        I had never considered the notion supreme court decisions were not actualy law until reading Alfred’s article above. In truth they are only administrational decisions for enforcement within the boundaries of their administration.

        No, the Supreme Court’s decisions are not “administrational decisions.” The Supreme Court is empowered to interpret statutes and make law, as it has done throughout our country’s history. Article III Section I vests all “judicial power” in the Supreme Court, and in a common law system “judicial power” includes the power to make law pursuant to cases before the court (and subject to the authority of the legislature).

        When someone gives you what looks like an amazing, killer argument that would win all legal cases, it’s sort of like they’re claiming to have a machine that prints winning lottery tickets. Why aren’t they using it? Why isn’t there any evidence, anywhere, of anyone ever winning a case by saying, “But the Supreme Court is just administrative law!” Because it’s nonsense. The argument misunderstands both what judicial power is and what “administrative law” is. If you’re interested, the Wiki on administrative law is OK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_administrative_law

        And if you’re really interested, there are a lot of boring books on the subject.

        In short , the supreme court decisions have force of through the sorcery implemented by the cult of Saturn which is merely a euphemism which has been used to replace the name of satan ! Black robes, occult language and proceedings , “official ” state seals of sorcery atop of each presentment issued by them

        Your theory is much more entertaining than the truth.

         
    • Roger

      September 8, 2015 at 8:46 AM

      Toland, from the definition of “law” at the url below:

      “Statutes are the primary source of law, and the power to enact statutes is reserved to elected lawmakers. However, judicial decisions also have the force of law. Statutes do not cover every conceivable case, and even when a statute does control a case, the courts may need to interpret it. Judicial decisions are known collectively as case law. A judicial decision legally binds the parties in the case, and also may serve as a law in the same prospective sense as does a statute. In other words, a judicial decision determines the outcome of the particular case, and also may regulate future conduct of all persons within the jurisdiction of the court…. Sometimes courts hear challenges to statutes or regulations based on constitutional grounds. Courts can make law by striking down part or all of a particular piece of legislation. The Supreme Court has the power to make law binding throughout the country on federal constitutional issues. The highest court in each state has the same power to interpret the state constitution and to issue holdings that have the force of law.”

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/law

       
      • Adask

        September 8, 2015 at 10:17 AM

        Court decisions may have the “force of law,” but they are not “law” any more than a car that has a 300 horse-power engine has 300 horses under the hood. The car may have for power or force of 300 horses, but it still doesn’t have any actual horses. Similarly, the court’s opinions may have the “force of law” without there being any actual “law” involved.

        It’s not impossible, but it’s challenging to imagine how anyone can be charged “contempt of court” when the court has no actual “law” on which the defendant is being charged. If there is no underlying “law,” the court apparently derives its apparent authority from the plaintiff’s or prosecutor’s claim.

        If so, this suggests that it’s not up to the court to “show me the law”. Instead, the defendant must make his “show me the law” argument to the plaintiff or prosecutor. More, the defendant is probably obligated to make his “show me the law” argument before the case gets to court. If the defendant hasn’t hollered “show me the law” before the case gets to court, it may be presumed by the court that the defendant has agreed that some valid and underlying “law” is present.

        If any of that speculation were true, then it might follow that if 1) a plaintiff/prosecutor threatened to sue me where 2) there was no relevant law, and 3) I hollered “show me the law” but 4) they didn’t produce any law, but continued to sue me, anyway; then 5) I might be able to file a countersuit for official oppression, fraud, fraud on the court or some such.

        I’m inclined to think that the “show me the law” argument may or may not work in court, but would work best if it was applied against the plaintiff/prosecutor BEFORE the case ever got to court.

         
      • Toland

        September 8, 2015 at 11:03 AM

        In other words, a judicial decision determines the outcome of the particular case, and also may regulate future conduct of all persons within the jurisdiction of the court.

        Sounds a lot like the judicial branch making law, to me.

        Wait, there’s more…

        The Supreme Court has the power to make law binding throughout the country on federal constitutional issues.

        There you have it. Remarkable what you can learn from a dictionary. Thanks for looking it up for us, Roger.

         
    • Les Moore

      September 8, 2015 at 2:32 PM

      Toland,
      @ “The Supreme Court has the power to make law binding throughout the country on federal constitutional issues.”
      Not only that, check this out!

      Supreme Court: Police May Violate Your Rights if They … – CopBlock
      Dec 17, 2014 … On Monday, a group of robe-wearing individuals collectively known as the “
      Supreme Court” said that police employees can violate your rights, …if-they-have-mistaken-understanding-of-law/
      http://www.copblock.org/93913/supreme-court-police-may-violate-your-rights-if-they-have-mistaken-understanding-of-law/

       
      • Colin

        September 8, 2015 at 10:55 PM

        Court decisions may have the “force of law,” but they are not “law” any more than a car that has a 300 horse-power engine has 300 horses under the hood.

        Sorry Alfred, but this isn’t true. There are several sources of law in the US: the US constitution, state constitutions, case law (made by courts) and administrative law (the rules made by agencies).

         
    • Les Moore

      September 10, 2015 at 1:33 AM

      Toland,
      @The Supreme Court has the power to “make law” binding throughout the country on federal constitutional issues. ( ” ” my emphasis)
      @ There you have it. Remarkable what you can learn from a dictionary. Thanks for looking it up for us, Roger.
      Exactly!! You just can’t beat them dictionaries. Where The Constitution specifically grants Congress its most important power — the authority to make laws, this was only inserted to fill up space as only people like us, who have the eyes to see, know the Constitution is only a piece of paper. ALL RISE!!

       
    • Les Moore

      September 10, 2015 at 3:48 AM

      Toland, September 10, 2015 at 2:20 AM
      @ “Though Al’s articles are not, in themselves, campy, a first-time visitor’s decision to return or not will be influenced by evidence of a campy following in the comment areas. Guilt by association isn’t logical, but branding isn’t about logic.”
      Toland,Your message is one of the only those who have the eyes to see messages Alfred will not see & this is sad because I know he would appreciate you bringing this to his attention. :-D ( . )

       
    • Les Moore

      September 10, 2015 at 3:53 AM

      Toland, Roger, Henry,
      My last at this time comment did not post exactly as I thought it would. ( . )
      I don’t think you’uns got the picture. IF it posts right this time, you will. :-D

       
      • Mark Twang

        September 11, 2015 at 12:47 AM

        @ Les Moore
        @ Toland, Roger, Henry,
        @ My last at this time comment did not post exactly as I thought it would. ( . )
        @ I don’t think you’uns got the picture. IF it posts right this time, you will. :-D
        Les you started this personality conflict!! How do I know? Because, Henry, Roger, &, Toland SAID SO, That’s HOW I know. Also Henry, Roger, &, Toland & I are on the same “spiritual perception” frequency.There you have it! Straight from the horses mouth.No doubt about it. When Roger speaks, it is the LAW! GET IT?.

         
  2. palani

    September 8, 2015 at 6:01 AM

    Contempt of court has to do with not obeying an order of the court. If I understand the situation some court ordered this clerk to issue some form of license. As there was a refusal to issue the license there is a contempt of the authority of the court.

    Contempt is the only real power a court of equity has. A court of law has no power of contempt.

     
    • Les Moore

      September 8, 2015 at 7:04 PM

      palani,
      @ A court of law has no power of contempt.
      palani IF what you say is, true, then the S.Ct.of The U.S. IS NOT A COURT OF LAW Eyethur!
      A Supreme Case of Contempt – ABA Journal
      Jun 2, 2009 … The case was United States v. Shipp. There were nine defendants, all charged
      with contempt of court—contempt of the Supreme Court, that is.
      http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_supreme_case_of_contempt

       
      • palani

        September 8, 2015 at 8:27 PM

        Penn. “I say, it is my place to speak to matter of law; I am arraigned a prisoner; my liberty, which is next to life itself, is now concerned: you are many mouths and ears against me, and if I must not be allowed to make the best of my case, it is hard, I say again, unless you shew me, and the people, the law you ground your indictment upon, I shall take it for granted your proceedings are merely arbitrary.”

        http://www.constitution.org/trials/penn/penn-mead.htm?PageSpeed=noscript

         
    • Colin

      September 8, 2015 at 10:57 PM

      Contempt is the only real power a court of equity has. A court of law has no power of contempt.

      Modern American courts are unified, neither “courts of law” nor “courts of equity” but applying whichever is appropriate to the case at hand. They are empowered to find people in contempt according to their own inherent power and by explicit statutory authority.

       
      • Mark Twang

        September 8, 2015 at 11:47 PM

        Colin,
        @They (Courts) are empowered to find people in contempt according to their own inherent power and by explicit statutory authority.
        Not necessarily. By their own inherent power, YES, but not necessarily by “explicit statutory AUTHORITY.
        We DO have STATUTORY Courts of “Record” But, NOT any Courts with Judicial Power as “Judicial Power” Was ORIGINALLY. Your EXPLICIT STATUTORY AUTHORITY IS PARTLY TRUE. You forget about the Courts CONTEMPT POWER To JAIL YOU even if you have a valid inability to comply argument/defense with their MADE WITHOUT AUTHORITY INVALID ORDERS! It’s not just YOU, It seems to be 99.99% of everybody who cannot grasp this. GET ON THE FRONT LINE!!! YOU WILL THEN CAPICHE !!! YOU BET-CHEE !!!

         
      • Mark Twang

        September 9, 2015 at 2:48 AM

        Colin,
        @ Modern American courts are unified, neither “courts of law” nor “courts of equity” but applying whichever is appropriate to the case at hand.
        IF I am understanding “unified”, please read the following.Court case excerpt & see if my questions are appropriate &/or proper.
        Our Supreme Court has also noted that, today, “`[j]urisdiction over the subject matter’ is commonly treated as a unitary topic,” placing in doubt the continued utility of a third category of jurisdiction, over the particular subject matter, where the court exceeds its grant of jurisdiction over the subject matter generally. Rendleman, supra, at 274. A]t this stage in the development of the law one may doubt that the distinction serves any useful purpose.” Id.

        At this STAGE in the DEVELOPMENT, OR, the Destroying of the LAW????? “Unitary topic”? What does unitary mean?

         
      • palani

        September 10, 2015 at 7:27 AM

        @ Colin “Modern American courts are unified, neither “courts of law” nor “courts of equity””
        If Law is masculine and Equity is feminine that would make a unified court Hermaphrodite wouldin’t it? I for sure don’t frequent transvestite bars so why would I frequent a Hermaphrodite court?

         
    • Mark Twang

      September 9, 2015 at 12:09 AM

      palani,
      @ I shall take it for granted your proceedings are merely arbitrary.”
      You do not have to take it for granted. It IS ARBITRARY!!
      @ you are many mouths and ears against me
      Not really! WE are ALL fer ya. :-) WE know what you mean tho. WE love yer werk!!!

       
  3. a man

    September 8, 2015 at 7:55 AM

    if she identified herself to the court (and ITS choice of law) then she shall answer to it. she is in their realm in ‘person’ … that ‘person’ being a creation of THAT law … her private opinion is IRRELEVANT! just because she believes something to the contrary, is simply a failure of her belief … as in, she failed to test it as “fact” BEFORE she chose to exercise it. if she had tested it as fact, then she could have ‘noticed’ the PUBLIC and had something to ‘stand’ upon. alas … presumption only works at-law … not at equity.

    One who seeks equity, must do equity
    Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their right
    Equity acts in personam
    Equity will not aid [enemies, rebels, belligerents and] volunteers.
    and
    Equity follows the law

     
    • Les Moore

      September 8, 2015 at 4:57 PM

      a man,
      @ if she identified herself to the court (and ITS choice of law) then she shall answer to it. she is in their realm in ‘person’ … that ‘person’ being a creation of THAT law … her private opinion is IRRELEVANT!
      EXACTLY!! YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!!

       
  4. Dennis Naanes

    September 8, 2015 at 1:59 PM

    Alfred “Show Me The Law” of Free Kim Davis !

    Thank you for this Great Video !

    Dennis

    ________________________________

     
  5. Les Moore

    September 8, 2015 at 2:17 PM

    Has anyone ever heard of TYRANNY & DESPOTISM!?!?
    OPINION
    BOSSON, Judge.
    This case presents two interesting questions. The first is whether a court exercising criminal jurisdiction and acting sua sponte may include in its sentencing order an injunction against further criminal conduct. The second is whether the injunction, even if invalid, insulates Defendant from a contempt citation for its willful violation. We hold that the district court’s injunction exceeded its authority, but we nonetheless affirm the citation for contempt.
    CONTEMPT
    Having determined the district court lacked authority to issue its injunction, we must now decide whether that order was enforceable, nonetheless, by the court’s contempt power.
    THE ANSWER WAS YES!! ALL 3 JUDGES SAID YES! ONCE AGAIN,Has anyone ever heard of TYRANNY & DESPOTISM!?!? We have LEGISLATIVE LAW en FORCE ment “PEACE OFFICERS & WE HAVE CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER en FORCE ment PEACE OFFICERS”! THEY HAVE A DUAL ROLE to “PLAY” aka JUST DOIN THEIR JOB!!!

     
    • Mark Twang

      September 9, 2015 at 2:20 PM

      @ The second is whether the injunction, even if invalid, insulates Defendant from a contempt citation for its willful violation.
      How does anyone “willfully violate” an “invalid order”? OHhhhhhhh I see, at least I think I do. We willfully violate the invalid order by not obeying it. Inability to comply with the invalid order is no longer a valid excuse due to the “merger” of law & equity & the “development” of the law, according to the Courts.”The development”???? What is being “developed”? I wonder what stage/ level, the progress is at today? Is it still being developed? Talk to me LEGAL BEAGLES !!!!

       
  6. Les Moore

    September 8, 2015 at 2:25 PM

    @ More, the defendant is probably obligated to make his “show me the law” argument before the case gets to court.
    Anyone who does not object to being labeled as the DEFENDANT & does not give irrefutable proof as to WHY he/she IS NOT “The DEFENDANT” is only p-p-ing in the wind regardless of ANY “show me the law arguments”!!!

     
  7. NicksTaxFree

    September 8, 2015 at 9:54 PM

    Jody is probably right about the Employment contract giving the Administrative court their jurisdiction over her. The government is always looking for the “voluntary consent” of their subjects. There are many ways we consent to this administrative jurisdiction without knowing it.
    1) when you are arrested and you get bailed or bonded out of jail, you sign their paperwork. You consented
    2) You show up to court and enter a plea, you gave your consent.
    3) You hire an Attorney to represent you in court, you consented.
    4) They call your name for you to come forward and approach the bench, you consent when you pass
    through the Bar, that swinging door that separates the Judge and lawyers from the public crowd.

    When ever you claim to be a 14th amendment U.S. citizen, on any government form or application: you consent to be subject to this Administrative jurisdiction. That also goes for legal permanent residents.
    One has to withdrawal your signature from all those forms (contracts) that you unknowingly signed by way of material facts where not disclosed at the time your signature/consent was obtained by false misrepresentation as to the undisclosed facts and there legal ramifications. No one can enter into a legally binding contract where material facts are undisclosed. However, if left unchallenged, you are still under contract and your consent remains binding.
    The 13th amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. Voluntary servitude was not abolished. The law of contracts still remain in effect and you can withdrawal your consent/signature based on business contract law. There are at least 4 grounds to void a contract. Legal age, Sound mind, Fraud and nondisclosure of all material facts.

    The LEGAL meaning of words are not the everyday normal usage of words as we layman understand words and phrases used in the legal realm.
    The phrase “United States” or “U.S. citizen” when used on a government form (State or Federal) means –The territory and the people that live on that federal territory that is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Congress. Washington D.C. has no representation in Congress and the Constitution does not apply to the people who live there. The Constitution and Bill of Rights only apply to the several States.

    The Income statues in Title 26 have NOT been passed into positive law. (Anyone can check this)
    That means it only applies to Federal employees by way of contract, residents of Federal territory under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress or to U.S. citizens no matter where they reside (anywhere in the world) by way of 26 U.S.C. section 7701(a)(39) Persons residing outside United States
    If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
    (A)jurisdiction of courts, or
    (B)enforcement of summons.

    This has a profound implication and deeper meaning if one ponders it. Why does the Fed’s kidnap your strawman and relocate it back in Washington D.C.

    I hope Al Adask or others can see how and why this is so important. Did anyone sign up for this when we falsely made the claim to be a U.S. citizen and subject to its jurisdiction as in the 14th amendment.
    We were all misled under not having the benefit of full disclosure.

     
    • Colin

      September 8, 2015 at 11:05 PM

      Jody is probably right about the Employment contract giving the Administrative court their jurisdiction over her.

      Jody was definitely not right about that. Davis was before a federal district court, not an “administrative court.” (Administrative courts are set up by agencies and administer the rules of that agency. District courts are Article III courts.) And she was not in trouble over any administrative laws. She was held in contempt for violating a court order, which is (a) within the judicial power and (b) authorized by statute.

      1) when you are arrested and you get bailed or bonded out of jail, you sign their paperwork. You consented
      2) You show up to court and enter a plea, you gave your consent.
      3) You hire an Attorney to represent you in court, you consented.
      4) They call your name for you to come forward and approach the bench, you consent when you pass
      through the Bar, that swinging door that separates the Judge and lawyers from the public crowd.

      No part of this is right. Signing bond or bail paperwork, entering a plea, hiring an attorney, and going through the swingy door thing are all totally irrelevant to criminal jurisdiction. Which is why there’s no case, ever, of anyone winning a case on grounds of, “Your honor I never walked through the swingy door thing!” And if you fail to enter a plea, the court will just enter a plea of “not guilty” for you. And if you don’t hire a lawyer, the court will either appoint one for you or let you proceed pro se. And if you won’t enter the courtroom, if it’s a serious case they’ll either just put you on CCTV or restrain you and drag you in. None of these steps would preclude a criminal trial, they would just really hurt someone unfortunate enough to try them.

      Did anyone sign up for this when we falsely made the claim to be a U.S. citizen and subject to its jurisdiction as in the 14th amendment.

      Unless you’re an immigrant, you became a citizen when you were born in the US (including DC or any state). You can only renounce your citizenship in accordance with the law, which basically means doing it in a foreign country by making a declaration to a US consular official. Anyone making up stories about doing it by mailing letters is just exercising an odd hobby, they haven’t done anything legally meaningful. Which is why no one has ever won a court case by claiming they weren’t a citizen under the 14th amendment. Common sense, guys.

       
      • NicksTaxFree

        September 9, 2015 at 12:53 AM

        Colin, would you care to comment on title 26 not being enacted into positive law?
        And more importantly, why would Congress feel the need to have section 7701(a)(39)(A) About persons not found in any U.S. district to be treated like they are in Washington D.C. to give the court jurisdiction over them?
        Why didn’t they say that they would be treated as if they were in the last State of residence before they left the United States?

        My answer would be to say as I have found the meaning of “United States” to legally mean; does not include the several states of the Union when used on all government documents (applications/forms)

        Here are a few cut and pasted definitions I have accumulated.
        26 U.S. Code 7701 – Definitions

        (a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
        (1) Person
        The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
        (9) United States
        The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
        (10) State
        The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
        (14) Taxpayer
        The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
        (39) Persons residing outside United States
        If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
        (A)jurisdiction of courts, or
        (B)enforcement of summons.
        (c) Includes and including
        The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

        This is the definition of State, it does not include the several states, only Washington D.C. So—
        —- So the legal term United States in a geographical sense includes Washington D.C. and the District of Columbia only.

        Since the Federal Corporation is just that, a corporation. It has no jurisdiction except with those
        that contract with it. Also see Congressional act of 1871 and USC Title 28, Part VI, chapter 176, sub chapter 176, subsection A, 3002 (15) “United States” means—(A) a Federal corporation;
        The states illegally contracted with the federal corporation by passing the Uniform Commercial
        Code making themselves as well as the unsuspecting people subject to the Federal corporation
        and also to the states in their new commercial capacities.

        The Uniform Commercial code creates a corporate State of the United States,the federal
        corporation. As opposed to one of the dejure several States of the union. See… UCC 1-201. General Definitions.(38) “State” means a State of the United States,…
        As opposed to being one of the several states of the union…
        USC TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002Definitions (14) “State” means any of the several States,…

        Because the states have passed the Uniform Commercial code, it has made its Citizens persons
        (which are legal entities and articles of commerce) and the State to be vessels of the United
        States placing the State and its Citizens under maritime law. See the brilliant word smithing in
        the following.

        USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 9. Vessel of the United States defined
        The term “vessel of the United States”, as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or
        possession thereof.
        Therefore all of the laws (color of law) are contractual commercial laws and the remedy is UCC 1-308. The Uniform Commercial Code makes all crimes commercial only by contract as per 27 CFR 72.11.

        America as a bankrupt nation is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the State governments. Do you have a Birth Certificate? They own you too.

        Last note: The 14th amendment actually creates a lower class of “citizen of the United States” rather than the higher Citizenship of one of the several states of the union. The remedy provided to the 14th amendment, is an act by congress known as 15 United States Statute at Large, July 27, 1868, one day before the 14th Amendment took effect and also known as the “Expatriation Statute.” This is your remedy to claim to be a natural Citizen of your state. This makes you a higher Citizen and no longer subject to the Article 4 loophole that also deprives you of your rights.
        http://highfrequency.forumchitchat.com/post/do-not-detain-list-information-7474144

        § 9-307. LOCATION OF DEBTOR. | UCC – Uniform Commercial Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
        (h) [Location of United States.]
        The United States is located in the District of Columbia. End of cut and paste.

        Isn’t it interesting that the UCC has this definition correct and does not try to hide this fact.
        But everywhere else the law has to try and hide and twist behind the means of “Includes/including”

        This is who I am now in relation to the U.S. government. It is their definition, not mine
        Nonresident alien sec. 7701 (a)
        An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).

        Colin, please answer the first two questions. And where is a good definition (Legal) of what is our country? Got any law to point out to us who don’t read law books
        When one becomes Naturalized the statues read “National” but the forms the government has one fill out says U.S. Citizen. Why would they change how it is worded from the law?


        Colin, here is a court case for you, I don’t know the # but it is worth watching

         
      • Colin

        September 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM

        Colin, would you care to comment on title 26 not being enacted into positive law?

        Sure. It’s a totally irrelevant piece of trivia that distracts from the fact that everything you wrote in the last comment was both wrong and indefensible. It’s also a common piece of internet mythology that isn’t worth the paper it isn’t printed on. Every piece of the income tax code is law; the fact that the title as a block hasn’t been re-enacted is irrelevant to the question of whether the individual operative parts of it are the law. There’s a more complete explanation here, with specific citations you can check.

        People have tried to get out of their tax obligations by making this argument. Guess what happens? They lose. Every single time. Because this argument is nonsense. And gentle readers: someone pimping this argument today, in the face of the fact that it has a 100% loss rate and a 0% win rate and that even the slightest bit of research will show you exactly why it’s meaningless, is not someone whose opinions are trustworthy. They don’t care whether their ideas are true or not, and people who don’t care about truth are not reliable.

        And more importantly, why would Congress feel the need to have section 7701(a)(39)(A) About persons not found in any U.S. district to be treated like they are in Washington D.C. to give the court jurisdiction over them?
        Why didn’t they say that they would be treated as if they were in the last State of residence before they left the United States?

        That got garbled somewhere between your brain and your fingers. I guess you mean, why would 26 USC 7701(a)(39)(A) say that persons residing outside the US be treated as residents of DC for purposes of jurisdiction and enforcement, rather than “the last state of residence”?

        There are obvious reasons other than “giant conspiracy that somehow only a few guys on the internet have figured out.” One is that someone might not have a “last state of residence.” They might have resided in DC, for example. Another, more common problem with your suggestion would be that putting someone in the putative jurisdiction of a state would make it necessary to jump through state law hoops that are irrelevant to someone residing outside the US. The DC courts are all federal, and have lots of experience with this sort of thing, so it’s an easy central clearing house for things like service of process and such.

        Or it could be a giant super-conspiracy. But probably not.

        The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

        This is the definition of State, it does not include the several states, only Washington D.C. So—
        —- So the legal term United States in a geographical sense includes Washington D.C. and the District of Columbia only.

        The bold part is from the definition you copied and pasted, the rest is your writing. Look at the bold part, then what you wrote. Can you see why I don’t take your theories very seriously? You copied a definition that says, explicitly, the word “includes” does not mean that only those things listed are within the definition. Then in the very next sentence you said that because the definition of ‘state’ only explicitly includes DC, only DC is a state.

        This is why sovereigntists and tax protesters always say that no one showed them the law. They don’t care what the law says. If it disagrees with what they want to believe, they ignore it completely in favor of whatever fantasy has grabbed their attention. NicksTaxFree wants to think that only DC is a “state” under this statute, so he just flat-out ignores the fact that inconvenient part of the statute at the end.

        What’s really telling about this is that he apparently expects the readers here to gloss over that inconvenient detail just like he did. Because a lot of people getting into the TP/sovereigntist movement also don’t care what the facts are, as long as the fantasy is fun and engaging.

        Guys, the facts matter. The bizarro conspiracy theories Nick is sharing are just plain wrong. And the fact that he doesn’t adjust his beliefs to match the facts says something about whether he’s a reliable source for information about taxes and the law.

        Since the Federal Corporation is just that, a corporation. It has no jurisdiction except with those
        that contract with it.

        The US is not a private corporation. Its jurisdiction is not limited to those who contract with it. This argument has never worked in court, and will never work in court, because it is bonkers.

        lso see Congressional act of 1871 and USC Title 28, Part VI, chapter 176, sub chapter 176, subsection A, 3002 (15) “United States” means—(A) a Federal corporation;

        That’s (a) a selective quotation, omitting the rest of the definition that has nothing to do with corporations, (b) doesn’t say that the US is a corporation, and (c) only applies to federal debt collection procedures. In other words, you’re reading it wrong, and even if you weren’t it wouldn’t support the bizarre, wrong point you’re trying to make (that the US only has jurisdiction over those with whom it contracts). And again, an argument that has only ever failed, never succeeded.

        The states illegally contracted with the federal corporation by passing the Uniform Commercial
        Code making themselves as well as the unsuspecting people subject to the Federal corporation
        and also to the states in their new commercial capacities.

        Wrong again. The states pass their own state laws modeled after the UCC. Even if (as often happens) the state law is exactly the same as the model statute, that’s not a “contract.” It’s not even anything like a contract. C’mon Nick, this argument is just dumb. You’re better than this. Take a class on the law or read a book or something, this is an embarrassment.

        The Uniform Commercial code creates a corporate State of the United States,the federal
        corporation.

        Wrong again. State laws can’t create divisions of a “federal corporation,” and the United States isn’t a private corporation anyway. And passing a definition doesn’t create anything. The definitions in statutes tell you how to interpret the language of operative provisions, they don’t have any operative effect in and of themselves. Three very obvious reasons why this argument is nonsense.

        “State” means a State of the United States,…
        As opposed to being one of the several states of the union…

        Actually it means “state of matter,” which is proof that Obama is an ice person trying to freeze the earth’s core and wipe out all life as we know it!

        No, not really. And there’s no difference between “State of the United States” and “one of the several states of the union.” Just more just-so stories from internet wackyland.

        Because the states have passed the Uniform Commercial code, it has made its Citizens persons
        (which are legal entities and articles of commerce) and the State to be vessels of the United
        States placing the State and its Citizens under maritime law.

        Wow. Just wow. Totally unsupported by fact, logic, or the merest shred of common sense. States are not vessels. Boats are vessels. Things that float on water, you know? Look up “vessel” and see whether you can find a definition that encompasses “Texas” or “California.”

        § 9-307. LOCATION OF DEBTOR. | UCC – Uniform Commercial Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
        (h) [Location of United States.]
        The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

        This means that for the purposes of perfection and priority (technical terms governing who gets what when a debtor goes bankrupt or there are competing claims), the United States is in DC. That will govern where papers need to be filed and such. It doesn’t say, or mean, that the US is only in DC or that states aren’t states or that Texas is a boat or that a gold fringed flag makes you emperor of Venus. Except on the internet, where anything can be true if you say it often enough and never, ever, ever, ever look at the actual facts.

        And where is a good definition (Legal) of what is our country? Got any law to point out to us who don’t read law books

        “Where can I read how to do calculus, for people who don’t read math books?” “Where can I read about neural anatomy, for those who don’t read medical books?” “Where can I read about the civil war, for those who don’t read history books?”

        If you want to know about the law, read law books. That’s where you find information about the subject—in books about that subject. What you’re looking for is soundbytes you can use to support your beliefs, not actual knowledge that would put those beliefs at risk. You should put your beliefs at risk, because your beliefs should be based on the facts.

        If you want a place to start, read the TP FAQ. It’s a great summary of these topics and more: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

        If you want to actually learn about law generally, take a free class in law from Coursera or somewhere like that. Or read a damn book, it’s not that hard. When I was in school “Saying What the Law Is” was very popular, by Charles Fried I think. There’s lots of other books, but you’ve got to be willing to read them.

        Oh, and again, for onlookers: please don’t get your legal advice from someone who can’t be bothered to read a book about the subject.

         
      • Adask

        September 9, 2015 at 4:13 PM

        Right. Don’t take advice from people who haven’t read a book on the subject of law.

        But, there are millions of books on law. Which one(s) should we read? Are there some books that are “officially” approved and some which are not? Can we safely take advice from our “officials” or is that advice intentionally biased to betray, rather than enlighten, us?

        And if we don’t get legal advice from someone who hasn’t read the “officially approved” books, should you take advice from someone who, by virtue of being licensed to steal by a State Bar Association, is a trained, professional liar?

        Are we better off taking advice from a well-educated liar or from someone who is less literate but honest?

         
      • Les Moore

        September 10, 2015 at 1:06 AM

        @ If you want to know about the law, read law books.
        Right you are again Colin, It’s the ONLY way. Also, The Main Stream media News sources ain’t bad either for knowing the truth about the real News.Sometimes I think people just truly don’t care about anything.

         
      • Colin

        September 10, 2015 at 11:59 AM

        Alfred,

        But, there are millions of books on law. Which one(s) should we read?

        At least one of them, and preferably more than one. The first line of defense against nonsense is to ask, “Does this person really believe in their own stuff?” And someone who doesn’t bother to read a book about the subject probably doesn’t really think they’re on to something. After all, if you thought you had the world’s greatest legal arguments in a bag, wouldn’t it be worth an hour or two to look in a book to check your understanding?

        Also, someone who can’t be bothered to study a subject can’t be trusted to discriminate between facts and fantasies. It takes work to do that, and someone who refuses to do even the most basic work of reading a book probably isn’t doing the harder work of testing and scrutinizing their own ideas.

        If you really want to read a good book on the law, and want to filter out the bad ones, it isn’t hard at all. First, look for books that are on the specific subject you want to learn more about. Then, look at reviews and comments about the book to see how it’s received in the wider world.

        Remember that you never have to agree with what a book says. But if you can’t be bothered to at least read it, are you really serious enough about the subject for anyone else to take you seriously?

        Can we safely take advice from our “officials” or is that advice intentionally biased to betray, rather than enlighten, us?

        This sounds like an attempt to create a justification for not learning anything that contradicts what you want to believe. It’s a good way to defend an idea from scrutiny, but a very bad way to find out if that idea is true or false. You don’t have to believe what you read, but someone who’s afraid of learning things that might contradict their beliefs isn’t trustworthy. They’re more invested in feeling right than being right.

        Are we better off taking advice from a well-educated liar or from someone who is less literate but honest?

        You’re better off learning things for yourself, so you can test the advice you’re offered against actual facts. Someone who doesn’t want to do that, who refuses to study or learn, isn’t capable of effectively discriminating between advice that’s good and advice that’s bad based on facts. So they do it based on ideology or what’s comforting to hear, rather than what’s probably true.

        Ask yourself, would you go to a doctor who refused to read anatomy books? Or a plumber who refused to look inside the wall to see what pipe goes where? Or an electrician who didn’t see any reason to read the wiring diagram? Knowing things takes effort. Being ignorant is easy, and fun. Get your advice from people who (a) know things, and (b) aren’t afraid to do the work to learn more things. Someone who won’t read a book on a subject they profess to care about probably doesn’t fit in either category.

         
    • Mark Twang

      September 9, 2015 at 2:23 AM

      NicksTaxFree
      Re: The video
      I could not hear a word the “Video guy” said. Maybe he had some backup guys with him. I NEVER had anybody. Anyway, I would not suggest anyone do what this guy did IF you are by yourself & “THEY” know this, i.e. you are alone.

       
  8. Colin

    September 8, 2015 at 10:44 PM

    Mr. Peroutka appears to not have any idea what he’s talking about. Courts do have the power to make law, and have from the very beginning of the American court system. Our system is based on a common law court system, and like the courts of that system, are empowered to make common law.

    Alfred, you’re also leaping to erroneous conclusions. You say, “ If the only charges against Kim Davis are that she’s [defied] a court opinion and/or executive order, then she has broken no law and it’s wrong, fraudulent and illegal to jail her for breaking a law because there is no such law.

    Yes, defying a court order is illegal. (How else would courts function? Every court ruling, more or less, results in at least one person who lost—if you could ignore courts with no consequences, the courts would be pointless.) 18 USC 401 empowers a court to punish, including by imprisonment, “disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”

    I began to realize why the “show me the law” demand (often used by “tax resistors” being tried for violating IRS law) is routinely ignored by government in general and the courts in particular.

    I bet it’s not ignored all that often. I bet what actually happens is that the government says, “HERE IS THE LAW!” and the tax protestor responds, “nuh uh.” No matter how clearly the law says what it says. Then complains that no one ever showed him the law. We’ve seen that here, in these comments, plenty of times.

    But beyond that, there isn’t any requirement to show you the law. The law is the law. Ignorance is no excuse, especially when any tax protestor could just go looking for any case in which their theory worked. Someone who can’t find such a case, and can find plenty in which that theory failed, really shouldn’t complain that the government won’t hold them by the hand and say, yes, again, for the ten thousandth time, income taxes apply to wages. (For example.)

    In theory, the “show me the law” defense should work against any charge that’s based on court opinions or executive orders–provided that you understand the significance of administrative law and make sure that your case is heard in a judicial, rather than administrative, court.

    Hoo boy. This is why “show me the law!” doesn’t work. Alfred, you do not understand what “administrative law” means, or what the difference is between an administrative and judicial court. And we’ll go back and forth on this. And you won’t change your mind. You’ve got an idea, and no fact or law or plainly-written treatise matters now.

    Under “separation of powers,” the judicial court’s opinions can’t be law since “all legislative power” is vested in the Congress and therefore no legislative power is vested in the judicial branch.

    No. All legislative power is vested in the legislature. (I don’t think the Texas legislature is actually called a “congress.”) That does not mean that court orders can’t be law. You are assuming that “making law” is the same thing as “legislating,” which is unsupported and untrue. Courts have been making law for hundreds of years; our system was designed as a common-law system in which it was assumed they’d continue doing the same. As they have, all along. Not legislating, but making rulings that are binding law. (There are even rules for how they bind, on the parties before the court, inferior courts, etc. None of that is legislating, although the legislature can step in and modify those rules pursuant to the Constitution.)

    But, as I’ve pointed out previously in several articles that touch on administrative law, according to the article on “administrative law” in American Jurisprudence 2nd, there is no separation of powers under administrative law.

    So the AmJur authors wrote a whole entry blowing the whistle on why American courts are illegitimate, but just forgot to say so directly? Or were silenced by the conspiracy? And no law professor or lawyer or politician or political scientist has ever realized that all our “administrative” courts are illegitimate, or else were silenced by the conspiracy?

    “Administrative law” is just the way agencies interpret their own rules. If the CFTC makes a rule that says you can’t trade commodities in a state where you don’t reside, and you complain that you spend four months a year in Florida so you should be able to trade there, the CFTC’s own tribunal can adjudicate the dispute. (Because it’s just deciding how the CFTC itself will act; it’s an agency exercising its own power over itself.) These cases go to normal, Article III courts somethings—if you don’t like the CFTC’s ruling, for example, you can appeal to normal court. And then the normal court is just adjudicating a case, like normal. It’s “administrative law” because it’s about the administration of an agency. That’s it. The Wikipedia article on this is OK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_administrative_law

    Nothing in the US Constitution prohibits either agency tribunals or Article III courts making decisions about the administration of executive agencies. I don’t know how Texas courts and agencies work, but what difference does that make to a federal court case in Kentucky?

    All of which implies that under administrative law, you can be jailed for violating a judicial opinion or an executive order and the “show me the law” defense will be ineffective and futile.

    You can be jailed for defying a judicial order regardless. Pursuant to the inherent authority of courts, and also the explicit statutory authority of Congress. Nothing special about administrative law here.

    In fact, while I wouldn’t yet bet on it, it is conceivable that, insofar as the police are deemed to be part of the administrative law government, an order by a cop might carry the same authority as a “law” enacted by the legislative branch of government. Interesting conjecture, no? Could it be that under administrative law, the cops don’t merely enforce the law, they make it?

    No. No, it is not conceivable that the police are part of some “administrative law government.” No, an order from a cop does not carry the same authority as an act of congress. No, “under administrative law,” cops don’t make the law.

    A police force is an executive agency. If the police force makes a rule that says that your retirement vests after X years on the force, and a cop wants to challenge that rule, the dispute would be administrative law. It’s about the internal administration of the agency. The laws they arrest people over aren’t internal administration, so it’s not administrative law.

    I raised an argument against being subject to administrative law the A.D. 2006 case …. The court never commented on either line of defense…..

    That last sentence is the important one. This argument didn’t win anything. Which is why it’s never actually worked in court, and why no lawyer has ever tried it, and why no law professor ever tried to make their career writing about it, and no political scientist ever wrote a killer book explaining the loophole, etc. etc. etc.

    If I were really facing prosecution in some administrative tribunal, I’d undoubtedly tweak, tighten and expand the previous line of defense.

    I hope you would take the time to talk to someone who actually knows what “administrative law” is, and how to tell whether they were in an “administrative tribunal” at all. (For example, Kim Davis wasn’t. US District Courts aren’t “administrative tribunals.”)

    As for Kim Davis (the clerk imprisoned for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays), if the previous analysis is roughly correct, even though she has violated no known legislative law, she has probably been “lawfully” imprisoned under administrative law.

    Your analysis of the Kim Davis case fails for the same reason your analysis of “administrative law” fails: you’re making it up as you go along, rather than investing any time or effort in actually learning the subject. It would only take a second to find out that contempt of court is actually punishable under a statute.

    If you really want to know about this—and if you think you’re on to something, you should—why not read a book about it? Justice Breyer wrote the major book about admin law, “Administrative Law & Regulatory Policy.” I don’t think it’s a fun read. But wouldn’t it be better to learn the actual facts, rather than just speculating wildly and wrongly? If you can’t be bothered to even read a book on the subject, why should anyone take your thoughts seriously?

     
    • Mark Twang

      September 8, 2015 at 11:21 PM

      Colin,
      @ And we’ll go back and forth on this.
      You got that right! This SAME thing has been going back & forth for years & EVERYBODY, practically, cannot grasp this.
      “We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.” Robert Bork
      Bork also said, “The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.” You can READ ALL ABOUT IN, The TEMPTING OF AMERICA. Better YET, MAKE SEVERAL STANDS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. THIS WILL SHOW HOW THE COOKIE CRUMBLES!!! HOW THE GRAPEFRUIT SQUIRTS!!! Get a lot of Boots on the ground, UP FRONT FRONT LINE EXPERIENCE! THEN SPECULATE! THERE WILL NOT BE ANY MAYBE IT’S THIS WAY & PROBABLY COULD BE SO, etc. YOU WILL KNOW, YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO GUESS!

       
      • Colin

        September 8, 2015 at 11:38 PM

        CAPSLOCK!!!

         
      • Toland

        September 9, 2015 at 2:27 AM

        Capslock is another piece of evidence that Les Fuchs is around 15 years old. This conclusion finally explains the troll’s long career of delusional exhibitionism which has damaged the reputation of Al’s blog.

        It occurred to me that over the many months when I used to read the troll’s comments, I never saw a single one that was inconsistent with the thoughts, emotions, reactions, devices and writing style of a teenage girl or boy (no one can tell which, and it’s no use asking because the capslock “secret agent” is a practiced liar who uses both male and female usernames).

         
      • Roger

        September 9, 2015 at 6:47 PM

        > “a teenage girl or boy (no one can tell which…)”

        Possibly a teenager, but it’s a male sort of mental illness. The female mind always retains a certain social groundedness, but the flakey Les Fuchs is far off the reservation and lost in a self-stimulation fantasyland.

        Also, it is likely for a teenage girl to circumvent dozens of bans over multiple years to trainwreck the comment areas, and thus diminish the readership, of a blog on this type of subject matter? Not very.

        The weird feminine quality of Les Fuchs – e.g. the touchy OUTRAGE!!!, the all-caps and explanation points HYSTERICS!!!, the chatterbox verbosity, etc. – is more like a drag queen’s farcical “Miss America” narcissism: a tragicomic take on the genuine feminine.

         
      • Toland

        September 10, 2015 at 2:20 AM

        Now I’m wondering if maybe Les Fuchs isn’t a subtler troll than we thought and has redirected the hate which once resulted in multiple bans into a patient redefinition of Al’s originally “straight” blog with a “campy” re-brand.

        camp
        noun
        An affectation of manners and tastes commonly thought to be artificial, vulgar, or banal.

        campy
        adjective
        Consciously artificial, exaggerated, vulgar, or mannered; self-parodying, esp when in dubious taste.

        camp it up
        verb
        To seek to focus attention on oneself by making an ostentatious display, overacting, etc.

        (dictionary.com)

        Does fit Les Fuchs, don’t it.

        Though Al’s articles are not, in themselves, campy, a first-time visitor’s decision to return or not will be influenced by evidence of a campy following in the comment areas. Guilt by association isn’t logical, but branding isn’t about logic.

         
      • Roger

        September 10, 2015 at 3:54 PM

        Yeah, and a new reader won’t know that the campy posts under many usernames are in fact all by the same pig. So the new reader gets the mistaken impression that most of Al’s readership is campy. Goodbye new reader, and mission accomplished for the pig.

         
    • Mark Twang

      September 9, 2015 at 12:24 AM

      Colin,
      @ No matter how clearly the law says what it says.
      The LAW IS what ever the Courts SAY it is. How much clearer can it be?
      @ No, “under administrative law,” cops don’t make the law.
      HAHHAHhahahaha. Makes no difference. They do en-FORCE- whatever they say is the law, The Courts are on their side. Birds of feather protect one another.
      Colin what is tyranny? Ever heard of despotism? This puts food on YOUR table, provides ALL the basic necessities & even makes YOU a few “BUCKS” aka, BILLS! Some of US are jailed for obeying the laws of “God” over the laws of man WHEN the conflict with each other. YOUR MEAT, OUR POISON!!

       
    • Fifee Tean Wheeler

      September 10, 2015 at 12:55 AM

      @ The laws they arrest people over aren’t internal administration, so it’s not administrative law.
      Is there any connection to administrative law & this & that Administration,e.g, The Obama Administration, & for example, when an Executive Branch “Peace Officer” murders, excuse me, kills someone, like in a routine traffic stop, & he is put on, Paid Administrative leave? It seems like there is a connection here with administrative law. Btw, I do not mean to sound cute, but, Paid Administrative leave strikes me as being like a paid for vacation, i.e., a period of suspension of work, study, or other activity, usually used for rest, recreation, or travel; recess or holiday.I am not trying to “mock, or, slander” by saying this.

       
    • NicksTaxFree

      September 10, 2015 at 1:58 AM

      To reply to Colin. There was no reply button on the comment above.
      I did leave out a footnote of my added comment on includes. I thought it would be obvious and time is short. I thought you might respond to my questions by citing some code section on the definition of what the term “United States” means. So I will help you find one. Here is another link and a excerpt from it.
      If I add a comment, I will footnote it
      Definition in the Hooven Case. http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/hooven.htm#united.states
      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 to the United States [672] extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.*6*

      “My contention is the term is used in the second way. As the territory that the U.S. congress has full legislative jurisdiction” “The federal territories and the subjects and property herein.” my comment in “”-“”
      “It would seem to me that a very simple definition could be written, but for the fact the government has something to hide” Example –{ United States means the several states of the Union under the Constitution and includes the District of Columbia.} Are we the believe they are trying to save ink?”
      “The people living in the States (which are without the United States) are having their domicile transferred to a Federal territory to give the courts jurisdiction over those who claimed U.S. citizen status.” “Without their knowledge and permission, thus in violation of the law of contracts.” ” People do beat the IRS on this point, those who lose did not completely withdrawal their consent to be treated as U.S. subjects. And are still under the jurisdiction of the courts. This is why the Kentucky clerk will lose her argument brought by her Attorney” “She is under the U.S. district or even an Administrative court; it makes little difference the type of court a U.S. citizen is brought before.”
      “Colin mentioned our legal system is based on “Common Law”, but that is not the jurisdiction that the Courts use today. You must know that! ”

      http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter4.htm
      “Here is a good legal analysis of the 3 meanings of United States and the harm that can happen to the individual if they don’t know which one is being used by government.” I guess it is perfectly legal for the government to use word tricks in order to gain a legal advantage over the people they are supposed to serve, as to reverse the relationship” “All is fair in legalese and government control”

      http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm
      Some of the confusion rampant on this subject may have
      originated in the definition of “UNITED STATES OF
      AMERICA” in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary here:
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldu1.htm#union

      When they came together the first time to form

      a Union of several (plural) States, they decided

      to call themselves the “United States of America”.

      Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished

      “United States of America” from “United States”

      in Congress assembled. The States formally

      delegated certain powers to the federal government,

      which is clearly identified in those Articles as the

      “United States”. { Articles of Confederation }

      Therefore, the “United States of America” now refer to

      the 50 States of the Union, and the term “United States”

      refers to the federal government.

      #################################################################
      The term “United States” is the term that is used consistently now

      throughout Title 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled

      in D.C. There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the

      term “United States of America” is used, and there it is used

      in correct contradistinction to “United States”:

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html

      ##############################################################
      Because Title 28 contains statutes which govern all federal courts,

      the consistent use of “United States” to refer to the federal

      government carries enormous weight. Title 28 is the latest word

      on this subject, as revised, codified and enacted into positive law

      on June 25, 1948. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause elevates

      Title 28 to the status of supreme Law of the Land.

      To make matters worse and to propagate more confusion,

      the entity “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”

      incorporated twice in the State of Delaware:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp
      ############################################################
      On Separation of Powers, like Alfred said, it is important too!
      Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, …
      https://books.google.com/books?id=RDJaBQAAQBAJ
      Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM) – 2012 – ‎Law
      That “United States”, in turn, includes federal territory and excludes states of 4 the Union or the “United States” mentioned in the constitution in every … 8 “The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses. … International law “United States*” “’These united States,” when traveling abroad, you come under …

       
      • Adask

        September 10, 2015 at 5:16 AM

        Got get ‘im!

         
      • Colin

        September 10, 2015 at 12:39 PM

        To reply to Colin. There was no reply button on the comment above.

        Yeah, it’s annoying. Not Alfred’s fault, it’s an issue with WordPress generally. For some reason your reply popped up on my phone anyway, so at least that works. Sometimes.

        I did leave out a footnote of my added comment on includes. I thought it would be obvious and time is short.

        What footnote would possibly justify the nonsense you wrote above? The definition explicitly says that “includes” means the definition is not limited to the examples given… then you immediately went on to try and make hay out of the fact that the given examples weren’t exhaustive. Again, this is the problem with sovereigntists claiming no one’s shown them the law. It doesn’t matter if someone shows them the law, if the law doesn’t say what they want it to. The belief comes first, and any evidence is purely secondary, to be read only in the light that supports that belief and totally ignored if it doesn’t. Shameful.

        Nick, your beliefs should be shaped to match the facts, not the other way around. You didn’t just forget a footnote, you read the statute completely wrong—and you did it to protect a belief you don’t want to abandon. What does it say about that belief if you have to twist into such pretzels to pretend it’s based on facts?

        You use the citations from “supremelaw.org” like magic spells, reciting bits and pieces of cases that I strongly doubt you’ve read as if you can assemble just the right incantation and – poof! – make your case. It’s like someone saying, “The Supreme Court is made up of androids built by lizard aliens, and I’ll prove it—look, this definition of “judge” never says human being in it! And this case here refers to judges as “automatons,” which means robots!”

        You’re trying to show that hundreds of years of jurisprudence is wholly wrong. It’s not going to be buried in a footnote somewhere. If your theories were even close to correct—even on the same planet, much less in the same ballpark as the truth—don’t you think at least one law professor, political scientist, historian, or practicing lawyer would have written something about it? Don’t you think there’d be some discussion of it somewhere, in all those books you won’t read?

        It would seem to me that a very simple definition could be written, but for the fact the government has something to hide” Example –{ United States means the several states of the Union under the Constitution and includes the District of Columbia.} Are we the believe they are trying to save ink?

        Yes. Statutes never try to define all words in all possible appropriate ways. It’s an impossible task. They define the words that need to be defined, either because there’s a specific and precise definition that will be helpful to understand, or because the legislature wants to use the definition to shape the law. So for example, if a law requires analyzing what state someone lives in, and there are lots of references in the statute to the state of residence, the definition will say that “state” includes DC. Not because “state” can only mean DC, but because putting that in the definition of “state” means you don’t have to write, in lots of different places in the statute, “the state of residence or DC if he happens to live there.”

        There are rules for this kind of interpretation in the books you won’t read. Generally definitions aren’t meant to be “exclusive” unless they say so, meaning that if a definition says, “X includes A, B, and C,” it doesn’t mean that D can’t also be included—especially if the normal, everyday reading of X would include D. So for example, “The definition of ‘birds’ includes sparrows, chickadees, and penguins,” doesn’t mean that eagles aren’t birds.

        The other big rule you ignore or didn’t know is that definitions apply in context. A definition that’s in a statute about debt collection procedures applies only for the purposes of that specific statute—not in all places for all time.

        “The people living in the States (which are without the United States) are having their domicile transferred to a Federal territory to give the courts jurisdiction over those who claimed U.S. citizen status.” “Without their knowledge and permission, thus in violation of the law of contracts.”

        You’ve made it almost impossible to tell which words are your comments, and which come from the court. Quotation marks usually mean that someone else said that thing, but these look like your comments.

        Is “Without their knowledge and permission, thus in violation of the law of contracts.” your comment? If so, you have absolutely no idea what “the law of contracts” is. I mean, this is just complete and total ignorance. Nick, read a damn book.

        First, no one’s domicile has been “transferred to a Federal territory.” If you live in a state, you live in a state. Second, federal jurisdiction doesn’t come from being in “a Federal territory.” Federal law has concurrent jurisdiction because the states are members of a federal union. There are limits to the exercise of such jurisdiction, which you will find in books. Third, there’s no contract here. Jurisdiction can be and is exercised in the absence of any contract granting it. You don’t have to contract with a government to be subject to its jurisdiction. That’s pretty much what makes a government a government.

        ” People do beat the IRS on this point

        I talked to a guy once who claimed he could talk to Bigfoot telepathically. True story, this is what he claimed. Know what he couldn’t do? Prove it.

        This is why the Kentucky clerk will lose her argument brought by her Attorney”

        If you think this comment was preceded by a cogent argument, I can’t find it. Why will she lose? What part of the magic jurisdiction spell has she got wrong, and what incantation would make her argument a winning one? And why can’t we see any examples of that incantation working in the real world?

        “Colin mentioned our legal system is based on “Common Law”, but that is not the jurisdiction that the Courts use today. You must know that! ” http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter4.htm

        How many cases has “supremelaw.org” won? What’s their win/loss ratio? Because it looks like the hobby of someone who just dumps a bunch of copied-and-pasted cases they haven’t read into giant pages full of disconnected gibberish. What on that page has anything to do with common law?

        If you want to know about common law, read a book. Or read a website that isn’t ranting conspiracy theories—at least for context, if nothing else. After all, how can you tell if “supremelaw.org” knows what it’s talking about if you haven’t looked at the mainstream perspective?

        “Here is a good legal analysis of the 3 meanings of United States and the harm that can happen to the individual if they don’t know which one is being used by government.”

        It is not a legal analysis, it’s copying and pasting out-of-context junk and asserting it as evidence for nonsense. And it’s sure as hell not a good analysis. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary is not the law. If it defined the United States as a salmon, the country would not be a fish. Supremelaw.org has taken an old dictionary and tried to base a crazy argument on outdated grammar. How outdated? Well, it refers to the thirty-one states of the union.

        The distinction between “United States” and “the United States of America” is grammatical and stylistic, not legal. Know what you’d be able to find if it was legal? Cases in which the terminology made a difference under the law. Got any? Guess not. Will that affect your belief in this nonsense? Absolutely not. Your belief is based on what you want to believe, and the fact that your beliefs don’t work isn’t relevant to you. But feel that little kernel of doubt? The disquiet over the notion that hey, why can’t these supremelaw guys actually show their ideas working in practice? Nurture it. They’re lying to you, or else just nuts. Look for real evidence—maybe even by reading a book.

        The term “United States” is the term that is used consistently now throughout Title 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled in D.C. There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the term “United States of America” is used, and there it is used in correct contradistinction to “United States”:

        They use the two phrases because they’re quoting a form document that uses a different style. As I said, the difference between “United States” and “United States of America” is stylistic. The statute is written in a formal style that is consistent across all federal statutes; the form’s in a different style. It means as little as the difference between “John Smith” and “JOHN SMITH.” Just different ways of writing the exact same thing. Disagree? Show me where the difference made a difference in a real-world case. If you can’t, why not?

        To make matters worse and to propagate more confusion, the entity “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” incorporated twice in the State of Delaware: http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp

        So someone registered a corporation called “United States of America.” So what? There’s a “France” registered in Delaware, too. Is the nation of France a Delaware corporation? Common sense, Nick.

        https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/EntityDetails.aspx?i=4143724

         
      • Colin

        September 10, 2015 at 12:40 PM

        (FYI Alfred, my response had some links in it, got sent to moderation–sorry, I’d have cut them out if I realized it tripped the spam filter.)

         
    • Les Moore

      September 10, 2015 at 6:14 PM

      Colin,
      @ What footnote would possibly justify the nonsense you wrote above?
      I got it. He was saying. I get that Now GO GET UMM!

       
    • Les Moore

      September 10, 2015 at 6:28 PM

      Colin,
      @ If you want to know about common law, read a book
      Common law simply means, as commonly understood by at least most people, i.e., known to the community. The common law of yesterday is not the common law of today, but most people do not understand this.

       
    • NicksTaxFree

      September 10, 2015 at 11:42 PM

      Colin, I really like the arguments you bring on this site. Without them it wouldn’t be as much fun.
      I didn’t have time to read all of your last post, but I will. I may seem to be making stuff up as I go along, but I really try and not do that. I do research, maybe I mostly do stick of information that agrees with my beliefs. It is hard to argue against U.S. Supreme Court case decisions. So I thought you would like to see some that refute your firm legal claim that “all persons born in the United States are in fact U.S. citizens and also subject to Its jurisdiction”.
      The only way the cases I site here are no long any good, is if they have been over turned by a more recent decision of the Supreme Court or maybe today’s’ Court system does not honor its own decisions made prior to 1938 or some other earlier date. You can take your pick; or I am not the only one who makes stuff up. If there is a more recent decision on this subject? I would like to know about it so I would not continue to be mistaken in my beliefs any longer. Here are some cases and their holdings.

      In the Constitution and laws of the United States the term [“citizenship”] is generally, if not always, used in a political sense to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States. Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 Sup. Ct. 656, 30 L.Ed. 766. A person may be a citizen of a state but not of the United States; as, an alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen, and who is by local law entitled to vote in the state of his residence, and there exercise all other local functions of local citizenship, such as holding office, right to poor relief, etc., but who is not a citizen of the United States. Taney, C.J., in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 405, 15 L.Ed. 691; Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 74, 21 L.Ed. 394.
      Harding v. Standard Oil Co., 182 Fed. 421 [182 Fed. 421 (1910)

      “We have in our political system a Government of the
      United States and a government of each of the several
      States. Each of these governments is distinct from the
      others, and each has citizens of its own ….”

      [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

      “But a person may be a citizen of a particular state
      and not a citizen of the United States. To hold
      otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest
      exercise of its sovereignty — the right to declare who
      are its citizens.”
      [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)] ( Louisiana Supreme Court )

      “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the
      federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a
      person to be a citizen of the United States in order to
      be a citizen of his state.”
      [Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections] [221 A.2d 431 (1966)] (Maryland Supreme Court )

      And then, as to the objection that this local law is repugnant to that clause in the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution which declares that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” it is sufficient to say that the interpretation of that clause by the supreme court in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, is a complete answer to this objection. There is a distinction, says Justice Miller, between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state.
      [Short v. State, 80 Md. 392, 401-402] [31 A. 322 (1895)]

      One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the
      United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 44
      [McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323 ] (1883)

      There are, then, under our republican form of government, two
      classes of citizens, one of the United States** and one of the
      state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without
      the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of
      Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person.
      [Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155] [48 S. 788, 791 (1909)

      { “This is so true, the key word here is USUALLY, but not then- isn’t always- implied.”}
      {” So how does a State citizen gain this Federal class of U.S. citizen and become subject to it” }
      Drivers licenses, voter registration form etc.exhibits a formal affidavit, signed under penalties of perjury, that drivers or voters etc. are a federal citizens.

      a. such an affidavit is admissible evidence in
      any State or federal court

      b. federal courts use this affidavit to
      establish income tax liabilities and or jurisdiction if needed.

      2. perjury is punishable by 2 or 3 years in State
      prison (see warnings on application or registration forms)

      a. warnings are in CONSPICUOUS text, which
      prevents signer from saying he didn’t see it
      For more information see– http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/jetruman/twoclass.htm
      { end of my comment here” }

      The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
      protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the
      Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See
      Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873).
      Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being
      a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights
      which relate to state citizenship.
      [Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (USDC/DCO 1993)]

      {” There are more cases, but I must stop” }
      {” So my question is, are these older U.S. Supreme court cases and the various State Supreme court cases still good law? Or have these ruling all gone down the legal memory hole? Have the States of the Union given up and lost their sovereign right to determined who their citizens are? And do they have any Citizens now?
      I look forward to some clarification on this important point. Otherwise, there would be no escape from the growing tyranny in the U.S. and the U.S.A., except to move and renounce all forms of attachment.

       
      • Colin

        September 11, 2015 at 4:01 PM

        I may seem to be making stuff up as I go along, but I really try and not do that. I do research, maybe I mostly do stick of information that agrees with my beliefs.

        You and me both—every person who ever lives has that tendency. But we can fight it. Coming here is one way I expose myself to contrary ideas. You can do it by reading a book, or taking a class. This one is one hour a week! https://www.coursera.org/learn/american-law If you can’t be bothered to learn something from the mainstream, then you really, truly do not know enough to test the accuracy of the baloney online.

        Look at it this way. You know there are bananas, wrong things posted online all the time, right? How do you tell whether something on a complex, detailed subject is reliable or not, if you don’t have some context for testing it? I don’t think you do. So go get it! Read a book, take a class, broaden your horizons.

        It is hard to argue against U.S. Supreme Court case decisions. So I thought you would like to see some that refute your firm legal claim that “all persons born in the United States are in fact U.S. citizens and also subject to Its jurisdiction”.
        The only way the cases I site here are no long any good, is if they have been over turned by a more recent decision of the Supreme Court or maybe today’s’ Court system does not honor its own decisions made prior to 1938 or some other earlier date.

        Wrong. This is an example of you not having enough background information to reliably test the garbage you’re reading online.

        First, you have to read court cases in context and in their entirety. This crap gets misquoted and quoted out of context all the time.
        Second, the opinions themselves have to be in context. Cases aren’t always “overturned by a more recent decision.” They can be invalidated by statutes, or by organic changes in the law, or by amendments, or in other ways. For example, I don’t think Dred Scott has ever been explicitly overruled. But it’s no longer good law.
        Third, you are definitely right that SCT cases can overturn prior opinions.

        On the specific cases you mentioned:

        In the Constitution and laws of the United States the term [“citizenship”] is generally, if not always, used in a political sense to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States. Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 Sup. Ct. 656, 30 L.Ed. 766. A person may be a citizen of a state but not of the United States; as, an alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen, and who is by local law entitled to vote in the state of his residence, and there exercise all other local functions of local citizenship, such as holding office, right to poor relief, etc., but who is not a citizen of the United States. Taney, C.J., in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 405, 15 L.Ed. 691; Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 74, 21 L.Ed. 394. Harding v. Standard Oil Co., 182 Fed. 421 [182 Fed. 421 (1910)
        The example there is pretty clear: an alien who is not yet a full citizen of the US may be considered a state citizen for the purposes of voting and such. This does not establish that someone born in the US, and thus a citizen by operation of the 14th Amendment, can withdraw to such a halfway status. The only way to renounce your citizenship is that which is spelled out by the statute, and it requires (basically) leaving the United States and making your declaration to a US consular officer in a foreign country. Maybe then you could re-immigrate and get this halfway status? You’d still be liable for taxes, of course.

        This assumes that Harding is still good law. I’m dubious. In a later case, the Court wrote, “By the original constitution citizenship in the United States was a consequence of citizenship in a state. By this clause [of the 14th Amendment] this order of things is reversed; … and citizenship in a state is a result of citizenship in the United States.” Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427, n. 3 (1935), quoting the opinion of Judge Woods in United States v. Hall, 26 Fed.Cas. No. 15,282, page 79, 81. (Taken from the TP Faq, which is a great source of refutations to TP/sovereigntist myths.)

        “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” [Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections] [221 A.2d 431 (1966)] (Maryland Supreme Court )

        This, too, does not establish that someone can be a 14th Amendment citizen, withdraw from their federal citizenship, and maintain state citizenship. I could tell before reading the case it was going to be about an immigrant, because that’s the only context in which this makes sense, and when I looked it up I was right. Context, remember? Unless you’re an immigrant like Crosse was, this doesn’t apply to you. You’re looking for law that say someone can withdraw their 14th amendment citizenship and escape laws they don’t like that way. You aren’t finding it.

        As Crosse says, US citizenship is defined by the 14th Amendment and federal statutes. State citizenship is a different thing, and basically goes to anyone who lives in a state. The disparity only matters to immigrants; if you’re born in any state, you’re a US citizen pursuant to the 14th Amendment.

        And then, as to the objection that this local law is repugnant to that clause in the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution which declares that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” it is sufficient to say that the interpretation of that clause by the supreme court in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, is a complete answer to this objection. There is a distinction, says Justice Miller, between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state. [Short v. State, 80 Md. 392, 401-402] [31 A. 322 (1895)]

        I can’t find a copy of that case to read. The Google Books treatise I found by searching for it says it’s a case about whether a state can abridge the privileges and immunities that come from state citizenship, as opposed to those that come from federal citizenship. That would make it also irrelevant. If you can point me to a copy I can read, please do.

        There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person. [Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155] [48 S. 788, 791 (1909)

        Can’t find a copy of this, either. It’s an election case, seems to me, so presumably it’s about whether someone’s a state citizen for purposes of voting, but that’s just a guess. It also doesn’t establish that people who are born here can sever their US citizenship and maintain state citizenship.

        {” So how does a State citizen gain this Federal class of U.S. citizen and become subject to it” }

        By being born here, or being naturalized as immigrants.

        Drivers licenses, voter registration form etc.exhibits a formal affidavit, signed under penalties of perjury, that drivers or voters etc. are a federal citizens.

        So what? Signing those docs doesn’t make you a federal citizen. If that was true, illegal immigrants would be breaking into DOT offices and signing drivers license applications left and right to get citizenship. Just saying “I am a citizen” doesn’t make you a citizen.

        {” So my question is, are these older U.S. Supreme court cases and the various State Supreme court cases still good law? Or have these ruling all gone down the legal memory hole? Have the States of the Union given up and lost their sovereign right to determined who their citizens are? And do they have any Citizens now?

        As far as I know they’re still good law, but they’re so old it’s hard to tell. Realistically a case that’s a century old (some of yours are older!) is going to get short shrift unless there’s nothing newer on point.

        But it doesn’t matter. Those cases stand for two propositions as far as I can tell. At least one says, “The 14th Amendment says no one deprive a person of the privileges and immunities of citizenship; does that mean state or federal citizenship?” I think modern cases say firmly it means both, but I’m not sure. It’s irrelevant to the point you want to make.

        Other cases say basically, “An immigrant who hasn’t got his US citizenship yet but lives in a state can be said to be a citizen of the state, but not the US.” That’s because US citizenship is governed by the 14th Amendment and federal statutes, while state citizenship is more loosey-goosey (basically turns on residence).

        That doesn’t mean that you can be a citizen of a state but not the US. If you were born in any state or DC, you’re a citizen of the US. The only way to lose that citizenship is to do it in a way recognized by law, such as leaving the country and renouncing your citizenship in a formal statement to a US consular official. Which would pretty much break your residence in any particular state, so you wouldn’t be a state-but-not-federal citizen.

        I look forward to some clarification on this important point. Otherwise, there would be no escape from the growing tyranny in the U.S. and the U.S.A., except to move and renounce all forms of attachment.

        If you don’t want to be subject to US law, I think you pretty much do have to move somewhere else and not own property here. That’s true of every country—if you live there or own property there, you’re going to be subject to its laws. Sorry.

         
      • palani

        September 13, 2015 at 8:03 AM

        @ Colin ” wrong things posted online all the time”
        I am glad you recognize your limitations but that hardly excuses you from increasing the population of wrong things.

        “Read a book, take a class, broaden your horizons. ”
        Good advice but you forgot “THINK FOR YOURSELF. USE REASON!”

        “if you’re born in any state, you’re a US citizen pursuant to the 14th Amendment”
        The Hoover Vacuum Company has established a territory for its’ sales purposes. If you are born in that territory then you are a Hoover Vacuum Company salesman. Does this sound rational or reasonable?

        Let’s take a look at what a state is. First, it is a body politic composed of what? For lack of better information let’s say it is made up of counties. And counties are made up of what? Seems by Michigan court dicta the body politic of a county is composed of villages, cities and townships. You can do your own research on how counties are created legislatively but perhaps you would trust me for a bit when I suggest that there are no people in any county. If people cannot be found in a county then the state has no people in its’ composition either. How can you be born into an entity that has no people? Where did Ma and Pa come from?

        Back to your statement again. Perhaps it is true that if you THINK you were born in any state (assuming that would be in the land sandwiched between Mexico and Canada) that someone else is free to THINK that you are a U.S. citizen?

        @ NicksTaxFree “Drivers licenses, voter registration form etc.exhibits a formal affidavit, signed under penalties of perjury, that drivers or voters etc. are a federal citizens.”
        The 14th amendment is not for federal citizens. It is for black citizens. Going even further, the 14th amendment is not even for FEDERAL citizens as this amendment forms the entire constitution for a NATIONAL government with its’ own citizens separate from those who are not fooled into thinking they are involved in a FEDERAL structure. You can find a copy of the U.S. Constitution (Annotated) in a library somewhere and find that very few of the Bill of Rights amendments actually apply to these black nationals called U.S. citizens.

        One INTENT of the action that created the entity we call The United States of America was to build a city to attach territory to. There was no city established for this purpose under the Articles. I bring this up because any analysis of the word ‘citizen’ is going to lead one to its source as the member of a city. From Manwood

        Territorie, as I take it, is derived from the Latin word Territorium, which is a Territorie, or all the fields and contrey lying within the bounds and libertie of a Citie, which doth extend farre without the walles of the Citie round about, by certain meetes and boundaries, without any other inclosure belonging to the same: … The French man doth use this word Territorie in the same sense, for he doth say le Territoire d’vneville, which is, the territorie or whole circuit of land, belonging to a towne or Citie.

        A FEDERAL citizen would appear to be a member of Washington D.C. The only true federal citizen can be found in the body politic of the federal government. Again, as in counties, there are no people here. The body politic of the federal government are the Several States. A citizen of the United States is a State.

         
      • Colin

        September 13, 2015 at 1:55 PM

        The Hoover Vacuum Company has established a territory for its’ sales purposes. If you are born in that territory then you are a Hoover Vacuum Company salesman. Does this sound rational or reasonable?

        Nope, it’s nonsense. It’s also irrelevant; there’s no Constitutional amendment making people born in the United States salesmen. There is one making people born in the United States citizens:

        “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

        Let’s take a look at what a state is.

        Let’s use common sense for a split second. A state is one of the fifty states that make up the United States (fewer in the past). Texas? It’s a state (not a boat). North Dakota? State! California? State! Kentucky? State! Mars? Not a state (at the time of this writing).

        You can do your own research on how counties are created legislatively but perhaps you would trust me for a bit when I suggest that there are no people in any county.

        You need to demonstrate the ability or willingness to distinguish between facts and nonsense before I would trust you on something like this.

        If people cannot be found in a county then the state has no people in its’ composition either.

        Classic nonsense. A state doesn’t have to have counties to be considered a state. Even if you were reciting facts, rather than made-up gibberish, it would have nothing to do with whether the 50 states are states.

        The 14th amendment is not for federal citizens. It is for black citizens.

        The kind of wacky fantasy that has been tried many times in courts and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever won a case. Why not, palani? And when you start reciting bogus myths like this, why don’t you bother informing your readers that they’ve always, always, always failed when put to the test? Seems a bit dodgy to me, like you’re trying to avoid dealing with inconvenient facts.

        One INTENT of the action that created the entity we call The United States of America was to build a city to attach territory to.

        Another INTENT of that action was to create a warp drive that would enable the Founding Fathers to finally take the fight to the Klingons. That’s not true, of course, but then, neither is your make-believe story. Neither one is supported by anything having even the faintest resemblance to a fact.

        From Manwood

        The 16th century Manwood? Yeah, not one of the drafters of the Constitution. So why on earth would a random passage plucked from an irrelevant book he wrote define the intent of the framers? Because it supports your preferred fantasy?

        A FEDERAL citizen would appear to be a member of Washington D.C.

        Nonsense on a stick, deep-fried and sold to rubes for a laugh. There’s a reason no one has ever prevailed on such a theory, and there’s a reason no law professor ever made their career by writing up these amazing discoveries, and there’s a reason no political scientist ever blew the whistle, and there’s a reason no historian is teaching the secret connection between Manwood and the no-city theory of something or other. This stuff is bunk. Fantasies that just plain don’t work in the real world. Fun to write about, but no more real or relevant to the real world than Harry Potter fan fiction.

         
      • palani

        September 13, 2015 at 4:07 PM

        @ Colin “Nope, it’s nonsense”

        But then I am an Idiot so what do you expect?

        Bouvier: There must be an appearance in person in the following cases: 1st. An idiot can appear only in person

        Etymology Online: idiot (n.)
        early 14c., … literally “private person (as opposed to one taking part in public affairs),”

        Now would you care to display to this board your brilliance?

         
      • Colin

        September 13, 2015 at 7:22 PM

        No, palani, I don’t think you’re stupid or crazy. Just having fun online, playing with nonsense ideas for the heck of it.

         
      • palani

        September 13, 2015 at 7:34 PM

        @ Colin “I don’t think you’re stupid or crazy.”
        I should hope not yet why have you brought up the topic of stupid or crazy? An idiot is one who chooses not to participate in public office and who can ONLY appear in person. From the perspective of one who chooses to participate in public office anyone who does not participate is an idiot. If this is the only path to relief then so be it. I choose to be an idiot.

         
  9. Mark Twang

    September 8, 2015 at 11:27 PM

    Colin,
    @ You can be jailed for defying a judicial order regardless.
    You betcha, & you can be jailed even if you are unable to comply with an invalid order made without authority. BECAUSE !!! IT’S THAT CONTEMPT POWER THANG!!

     
  10. Mark Twang

    September 8, 2015 at 11:55 PM

    @ CAPSLOCK!!!
    Yes!! Even using a 2 by 4 makes no difference.I don’t think using a sledge hammer will help either. Why do the “Courts” use CAPLOCKS !!! ????? What is good for the Goose ain’t good for the Goose-E !!! Right SHERLOCK!!!

     
  11. Mark Twang

    September 9, 2015 at 1:21 PM

    The following message has been submitted on this blog repeatedly, for years, & it seems to me only 2 or 3 posters “get it”! I wanted to put “get it” in all caps but, I do not want to offend, etc. Colin, Henry, Roger, & Toland, all birds of a feather brothers. IF anyone has the eyes to see,give Collin credit for not using Holy Bible scriptures to mock like the other 3 Men Animals do.

    The first President, George Washington, warns the nation in his Farewell Address, that love of power will tend to create a real despotism in America unless proper checks and balances are maintained to limit government power

    It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.

     
    • NicksTaxFree

      September 11, 2015 at 9:53 AM

      Yes Mark. I get it. Once you learn the true state of this Nation, see the abuse of the rule of law from all agencies of government at all 3 levels. One can’t unlearn the truth. It is like the “Matrix” movie and the red pill. The powers that be are now working on 2 new levels of government that they can abuse us from. We know of the coming World government, but they are adding a regional level between town and State to take away local elected officials accountability to the people. Part of Agenda 21 that we will be hearing about in 2 weeks from the UN and the Popes visit and speech. It is like an early Christmas, can’t wait to get under that tree and unrap what they have in store for us now? I’m sure we will just love it.

       
  12. Les Moore

    September 10, 2015 at 1:12 AM

    Famous American lawyers — All but one never went to law school
    13 FAMOUS AMERICAN LAWYERS ALL BUT ONE NEVER WENT TO LAW
    SCHOOL. 1. Patrick Henry (1736-1799), member of the Continental Congress, …
    https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lawyers.htm

     
  13. Les Moore

    September 10, 2015 at 4:07 AM

    Roger
    Re: ALL of your message on September 9, 2015 at 6:47 PM
    OHhhhhhhhhhhhhh the joy of the insult seems as compelling as the art of the deal.
    When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously and as violently as you can,” Donald Trump.
    You can “read all about it” in his book “How to Get Rich.”

     
  14. Les Moore

    September 10, 2015 at 4:13 AM

    Roger,
    @ The female mind always retains a certain social groundedness,
    Roger Who can know this better than YOU, & Henry, & Toland? ( . )

     
  15. Les Moore

    September 10, 2015 at 10:33 PM

    Adask,
    @ Right. Don’t take advice from people who haven’t read a book on the subject of law.
    MY, excuse me, OUR MULTIPLE PERSONALITY FEELINGS EXACTLY!!!
    Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger agrees & is reading. We need those books! Got to have the books!
    Btw, Multiple is defined as,The result of multiplying a number by an integer (not by a fraction). • 12 is a multiple of 3, as 3 × 4 = 12• −6 is a multiple of 3, as 3 × −2 = −6 • But LOOK-E-HERE!!! 7 is NOT a multiple of 3. Get it?

     
  16. NicksTaxFree

    September 11, 2015 at 9:30 AM

    26 U.S. Code 7701 – Definitions {” Title 26, the income tax statues “}

    (c) Includes and including
    The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

    ” otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” I guess we need to understand what this section within the definition of include legally means. We can see both words are in the definitions section of the IRC, so this is all of what is “within” the definition of the term defined. Can I look “without” (outside) of the definition and include what is not already “within” these or any other term defined in section 7701? Can I go to Websters or Blacks law dictionary and include what I want? If I don’t do that, can I be accused of excluding some other meaning that Congress meant to include within the meaning but left it out?

    Can one assume that State means the States of the Union plus includes D.C.? Or would one be including something that was not within the term defined? If one does not include the ordinary meaning of a term or word that is not included in the definition, would they be excluding anything?

    The answer, If it is not already included within the definition, it is not being excluded from the term defined.

    I excluded nothing “within” this term defined and included all that was within the word “State” that Congress passed into non-positve law. Positive law applies to all the several states while Titles not passed into positive law apply to the Federal zone only. This attempt to define the term United States word by word is a process of concealment of the fact that our government is using the term “United States” in the 2nd sense of the Hooven case cited earlier. Congress exclusive jurisdiction of Federal districts, possessions and territories etc.

    This is legal word smithing at its best. The Federal government must die on this legal hill, otherwise the tax code would not apply to those that live and earn money only within the several States

    (10) State
    The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

    ” where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.” There is more honesty in this phrase than anyone can imagine. This is the absolute truth of the matter, and is necessary all the time for those who live in the several States of the Union

    (39) Persons residing outside United States
    If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
    (A)jurisdiction of courts, or
    (B)enforcement of summons.

    The term “United States” as used here really means Federal Zone. So if you don’t live in D.C. they will treat you like you did because you signed forms with perjury statements swearing that you were a Federal Zone U.S. citizen. The government just won’t tell you that is the game they are playing.!!!
    So here is the cherry on top, legalese wise.

    (9) United States
    The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

    I hope more people can see this when all these terms are held up side by side. Title 26 is written lawfully and passed correctly. It is only being legally misapplied and the 3 branches of the Federal government look the other way. Of course they would, it is in their self interest. The 1040 booklet tell us that the income tax is based on “voluntary compliance”, that is the truth for State Citizens. But don’t try not complying if you are still claiming to be a #2 Hooven class U.S.citizen. The IRS and their Administrative court will fight you all the way. They will never admit to what I pointed out here. One has to untangle themselves first.

    Colin, we will never agree in these matters. You would first have to convince me that the Federal Reserve System is part of the government and is doing a good job assisting the Treasury department run America’s monetary policy. That abandoning the Gold clause of the Constitution in 1933 was perfectly fine and lawful without an amendment passed to that effect. That our Republic was not taken over by outside forces before we were ever born. Assuming you are not over 82 year old. That’s a tall order.

     
    • Colin

      September 11, 2015 at 4:11 PM

      26 U.S. Code 7701 – Definitions {” Title 26, the income tax statues “}
      (c) Includes and including
      The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
      ” otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” I guess we need to understand what this section within the definition of include legally means. We can see both words are in the definitions section of the IRC, so this is all of what is “within” the definition of the term defined. Can I look “without” (outside) of the definition and include what is not already “within” these or any other term defined in section 7701? Can I go to Websters or Blacks law dictionary and include what I want? If I don’t do that, can I be accused of excluding some other meaning that Congress meant to include within the meaning but left it out?

      Look at all this twisting and turning you have to do in order to make your idea sound even marginally sane. The statute means that the definitions aren’t exclusive—the normal everyday meaning of a word still applies. Nothing in the statute supports this idea that “state” doesn’t mean “state.” If there’s a dispute over what an undefined term, or a definition outside of what’s included in the statute, means, then courts will look to obvious sources to figure it out. What have prior cases said, what does the dictionary say, what did the drafters say, etc. None of those sources will say that “state” only means “DC.”

      The rest of your comment is word salad. It’s the kind of make-believe that has never won a single case. Why not? Because it’s incredibly wrong. The proof is in the pudding, Nick.

       
    • Colin

      September 11, 2015 at 4:13 PM

      Colin, we will never agree in these matters. You would first have to convince me that the Federal Reserve System is part of the government and is doing a good job assisting the Treasury department run America’s monetary policy. That abandoning the Gold clause of the Constitution in 1933 was perfectly fine and lawful without an amendment passed to that effect. That our Republic was not taken over by outside forces before we were ever born. Assuming you are not over 82 year old. That’s a tall order.

      Yup. And no one will ever convince my Bigfoot hunter friend that he isn’t receiving telepathic communications from the gentle forest giants.

      Why does your reading of a statute depend on your belief that the Fed is doing a bad job? Because it’s all about ideology, not facts. But your beliefs should be based on facts, Nick, not the other way around.

       
      • Lance Pearce

        September 11, 2015 at 7:32 PM

        @ Yup. And no one will ever convince my Bigfoot hunter friend that he isn’t receiving telepathic communications from the gentle forest giants.
        Colin,You will get a kick out of this. I am convinced that this “BigFoot” aka, “Sasquatch” IS a living being but a spirit being aka ONE of the “Fallen Angels” aka a DEMON who can appear & vanish, disappear, at will. Since YOU are in the REAL world, naturally you will HORSELAUGH. Makes no difference to me as I am only proving I am a LUNATIC as I am said to be. :-D

         
      • StanLee

        September 21, 2015 at 11:50 PM

        is there a god? where are the facts to support that belief? My belief is that you are an attorney, violating the whole of mankind, a traitor to Common Law. Taught by the very same traitors of the Constitution. Do some reading about why our first President to the United States, George Washington took his land back that he donated to the District of Columbia. Think for yourself, use common sense.

         
      • Chex

        October 2, 2015 at 8:43 AM

        What is the statutory definition of a dollar?

        In Title 18 USC § 8 who’s obligation is it?

        In Title 12 USC § 411 what is it that shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand

        In Title 31 U.S.C. § 3124 what is exempt?

        What did Kinney V. Beverly, 2 Hen. & M(VA) 381, 336 and Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KAN 542.have to say?

        What about my FIFTH AMENDMENT rights? Davidson V. New Orleans 96 U.S. 97, 24, L Ed 616.

        Davidson vs. Orleans 96, U.S. 97, 24 L ED 161.

        Duncan vs. Missouri, 152, U.S. 382,14 SUP. CT. 570, 38 L. ED. 485.

        There are only two forms of legal tender in the U.S. – gold & silver under the Constitution, and Federal Reserve notes under the Federal Reserve Act of Congress (1913).

        Didn’t Louis T. McFadden’s Speech In the House of Representatives 10 June 1932 tell us who they are?

        Didn’t Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House: The Bankruptcy of The United States United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

        Why don’t more people use Article III judges and the “Saving-to-Suitors” Clause. http://admiralty.uslegal.com/saving-to-suitors-clause/

         
  17. palani

    September 11, 2015 at 2:52 PM

    “That our Republic was not taken over by outside forces before we were ever born.”
    The Federal Republic started out with the Articles and converted to the Constitution. It ended with a fixed debt of $346,681,016 in 1878 without being replaced or modified in any way. The final nail in the coffin was started with the (un)Civil War and driven home with the 14th amendment. Instead of a Federation there is now a National Government and most people have the sense to know that you don’t operate a national system with the constitution of a federation. Confusion results if you attempt this. There is a due process clause in the constitution and a due process clause in the 14th amendment. Anything that was established PRIOR to 1868 simply no longer applies as evidenced by the duplication of due process clauses.

     
  18. Lance Pearce

    September 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM

    palani,
    The War Changed a Nation – Virginia Center for Digital History
    The United States’ triumph assured the continued existence of only one union of
    states. Furthermore, the war’s outcome also established the federal government
    as the … The 14th Amendment made freedmen citizens entitled to equal civil
    rights. … By the early 1870s, the Supreme Court was qualifying the meaning of
    the …
    http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/civilwar/index.php?section=Exhibits&page=Legacy1

    Sincerely,
    D.B.

     
  19. Lex Mercatoria

    September 23, 2015 at 10:29 PM

    Any mention of the Constitution is meaningless because, though ratified, it remains unadopted. Starting with that snake-in-the-grass George Washington, no on at any level of the territorial gov’t, be he civilian or military, has taken and subscribed the required Article 6 Clause 3 oath “… to support THIS Constitution.” (emphasis added)

    In short, the gov’t doesn’t go by it so George Bush was correct when allegedly stated the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

     
  20. Chex

    September 30, 2015 at 9:12 PM

    “Debt begins in Admiralty whether on land or navigable waters.”
    United States v. $5,372.85 United States Coin and Currency, 283 F.Supp. 904, 905-06 (S.D.N.Y. 1968).

    The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution, common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose.

    46 U.S. Code Chapter 313 – COMMERCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND MARITIME LIENS.

    Their priority over statutory liens is stated in 46 USC 31307.

    Priority over common law liens is stated in 46 USC 31326.

    The most quoted reference that defines a vessel as a person in admiralty jurisdiction is:
    G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty p:586-89 (2d ed. 1975)

    He defines a vessel as a person and it is also common language in the dictionary and the Bible.

    Vessel is defined in the US Code at 1 USC 3.

    Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Addition says the definition of vessel is very broad.

    The standard dictionary defines vessel as “a person as an agent or holder of something”.

     

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