Tag Archives: State of the Union

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

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

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

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

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


Roger’s Comment


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

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

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , ,

Protecting the “States” against Invasion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , ,

A Reader Wonders — Art. 1.10.1 vs Art. 4.3.2

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

A reader (“D.”) posed the following comments and questions:


“I’ve been ‘thinking’ and since I’ve watched the 3-part series of ‘Money as Debt,’ I’m now asking the question:  Labor is what really gives “money” its value and I understand that all currencies are fiat or unbacked.  Any clue or idea on how to measure the value of different types of labor performed in terms of gold and silver which I understand is the true money and of course what the Illuminati only deal in.”


I don’t know what form of currency the Illuminati prefer, but I do know that 99% of the American people don’t understand anything more about money than how to count it. More, I know that the concept of money is far more complex, mysterious and influential than mere counting might suggest.

For example, I disagree with your premise that “Labor is what really gives ‘money’ its value.”

If labor is all it takes to give money value, then there’s no reason why we can’t use fiat currency as money and no reason to prefer gold. We can measure the value of our “labor” in terms of corn cobs, pebbles, gold or fiat currency.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , ,

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

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , ,

Driving in Commerce

A motor officer writes a traffic ticket for a ...

Driving As Commercial Activity.  Pay as you Go!   Photo © by Jeff Dean (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Anon4fun recently posted a comment on this blog involving the alleged “commercial” nature imputed by the courts to anyone who is driving an automobile.  According to Anon4fun,

“Re: Your comment of: Driving as a “commercial” activity.
“In the eyes/minds,etc., of ALL the courts I am aware of, a, or any “driver of a motor vehicle” IS engaging/participating,etc., in commercial activity. Every word/term used in the motor vehicle code is a commerce word/term,e.g “passenger.” We know that a passenger is a “paying customer.” I don’t think it is “just coincidental” that the Court in Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645,said,in pertinent part: “A traveler by automobile;” and not a “driver of a motor vehicle.”

“At Common Law there is no precise limit of speed. A traveler by automobile must adopt a reasonable speed.” Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645.”

Virtually anyone who’s studied traffic law has run into one or more court cases that appear to describe all “driving” as “commercial activity”.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on September 10, 2012 in "The State" vs. "this state", Commerce, Traffic Law


Tags: , , , ,

Mind, Body & Soul?

Español: Fresco en la Capilla Sixtina.

Sistine Chapel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As I was “bobbing for apples” (reading Supreme Court case law) today, I found:

FindLaw: STURGES v. CROWNINSHIELD, 17 U.S. 122 (1819)

which declares in part,

“. . . . Well was it said by a learned judge, that such freedom would be a mockery: nay, worse, it would be aggravated slavery and complicated misery! It is admitted, that the state has a right to the service of its citizens.”

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , ,

Government Corporations

There was a time when I and most other legal reform advocates assumed that all “corporate government” was bad.  Over time, I came to see that–as much as despise and distrust corporations–corporate government is at least a necessity and, properly conceived, a possible benefit for the People.

The fundamental question is not “Am I dealing with a governmental corporation?” but rather “Who owns–and therefore benefits from–the governmental corporation I’m dealing with?  Am I presumed to be one of the beneficiaries of that corporation or merely one of its customers or even employees?”   I.e., “Is the governmental corporation I’m dealing with a “public” corporation that is owned by all the People and therefore works for the best interests of the “public”/People–or is it a “privatized” corporation that’s owned by some private individuals and works for the best interests of those private individuals rather than for the best interests of the “People” in general?

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on June 17, 2012 in Constitution, Corporations


Tags: , , , ,