Tag Archives: Venue

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: , , , , , ,

Hierarchical Governance

Subsection (c) of Rule 101 (“Title and Scope”) of the Texas Rules of Evidence reads as follows:

“(c)   Hierarchical Governance in Criminal Proceedings. –Hierarchical governance shall be in the following order: the Constitution of the United States, those federal statutes that control states under the supremacy clause, the Constitution of Texas, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, civil statutes, these rules, and the common law. Where possible, inconsistency is to be removed by reasonable construction.”

If you’ve read “The Organic Law of The United States of America” you know that this “Organic Law” includes four documents:

1)  The Declaration of Independence (A.D. 1776);

2) Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781) which are the constitution of The United States of America;

3) Northwest Ordinance (A.D. 1787); and,

4) Constitution of the United States (first ratified and made effective by the People in A.D. 1788).

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , ,

The Backyard Chicken Movement

a tame hen being held being held in the U.K.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There’s no profound insight in this article.  There’s not even the pretense of a profound insight.  It’s just a little article to illustrate a possibly practical application of some of the theories I explore on this blog.



I just read an article entitled “The Backyard Chicken Movement” which describes:  1) the growing American movement to raise our own chickens for eggs and fryers in own own backyards; and 2) the growing resistance to “residential chickens” from local governments.

When I saw the article’s title, I thought it was probably about restricting the average American’s ability to raise his own food.  I expected to read how the government wants us dependent on government for our food, so they won’t let us grow (or store) our own.  So I was hoping to find some evidence to support the “man or other animals” theme that is prominent in my thinking.

I was mistaken.  The article explains that local governments’ attempts to restrict raising backyard chickens had virtually nothing to do with food, but was, instead, based on zoning regulations.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on December 11, 2012 in "The State" vs. "this state", Notice, Venue


Tags: , ,

Use of the Zip Code is Voluntary

English: ZIP code promotional sign with "...

ZIP code promotional sign with “Mr. ZIP” on a hotel letter drop. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I received an email containing the following article. I don’t know who wrote it, but it appears credible.  Unfortunately, not every claim in the article is documented with an underlying authority.  However, most of the claims can be traced to an authority.  

While I have embraced the idea that TX, OK and CA signify “administrative divisions of US territory,” this article claims that use of the Zip Code creates prima facie evidence that you are a “resident” or Washington DC.  The two hypotheses seem to deal with the same concept:  that the government presumes we are in a federal venue (where we are subjects of Congress) rather than within a venue of a State of the Union (where we are individual sovereigns).  

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on October 3, 2012 in "The State" vs. "this state", USPS, Venue, Zip Code


Tags: , , , , ,

Post Roads within The State or “in this state”?

ZIP code promotional sign with "Mr. ZIP&q...

Image via Wikipedia

Under Article I Section 8, Clause 7 of The Constitution of the United States, the Congress has the power “To establish Post Offices and post Roads

So far as I know, “post roads” continued as the fundamental means of identifying a place for the delivery of mail until A.D. 1963 when they were supplanted by addresses associated with Zip Codes.  It’s not clear to me whether “post roads” still exist.  Although they are unused and almost unremembered, I suspect that “post roads” are still available if you care to use them to address your mail.  Technically, “post roads” would seem to have been abandoned and unused for almost 50 years.  Constitutionally, Congress not only has the power, they would seem to have the duty to “establish” and maintain “post roads”.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on August 22, 2011 in "The State" vs. "this state", Venue


Tags: , , ,

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

View of Capitol Hill from the U.S. Supreme Court

Image via Wikipedia

Under the “The State/this state” hypothesis, the term “The State” is intended to signify any one of the 50 States of the Union (such as “The State of Texas” or “The State of Florida”).  The term “this state,” on the other hand, is intended to signify administrative districts (like “TX” or “FL”) of a singular territory that spans the entire U.S..   (For more insight into this hypothesis, see, “The States of the Union vs. The Territory” at

According to the “The State/this state” hypothesis, the federal gov-co has supplanted “The States” of the Union with the administrative districts of a singular national territory.  It is believed that the feds caused this change because, under Article 1 of the federal Constitution, Congress has limited and enumerated powers with regard to “The States” of the Union, but under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has virtually unlimited powers over the territories.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , ,

The States of the Union vs. the Territory

Various Federal Reserve Notes, c.1995. Only th...

Image via Wikipedia

I embrace the fantastic hypothesis that the federal government has created a second, alternative set of “states” that are, in fact, administrative districts of a “territory” rather than States of the Union.  In essence, this “State-vs-territory” hypothesis argues that “TX” is a territory while “The State of Texas” is a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.  Whichever of these venues (territory or State of the Union) that you inhabit will determine your rights, your duties, your taxes, your liabilities to arbitrary, unlimited government or your liberty within a limited government.

The idea of two, alternative “venues” (the States of the Union and territories) is at least fifteen years old.  So far as I know, the first person to advocate this concept was Paul Andrew Mitchell (writing under the pen name of “Mitch Modeleski”) in his book The Federal Zone.  The concept was picked up and amplified by Richard Kegley, TJ Henderson, Ed Wahler and Dennis Craig Bynum in A.D. 2006 in a book entitled USA v US.  I’ve studied and explored this concept for at least 10 years and, fantastic as it seems, I believe this hypothesis to be true.

I realize that the idea that our own federal government would intentionally “overthrow” the governments of the States of the Union, supplant those State governments with territorial administrative agencies seems too fantastic to believe.  I’ve spent at least 10 years looking for evidence to disprove this incredible hypothesis.  But after ten years of looking all I can tell you for sure is that: 1) It looks like a duck; 2) it walks like a duck; 3) it quacks like a duck; and 4) it goes good with orange sauce.  I still can’t prove that it’s a duck, but I’ve seen nothing in 10 years to suggest that it’s not.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , , , ,