[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Ol' George the First I have always wondered exactly where the federal districts had their beginnings. I've seen much of the information developed about 'federalism' and 'federal zones', etc., but every time I thought I had finally arrived at the source of the infection, more information came to my view. On the internet, you can search for and find a very interesting (and free) on-line book titled The United States is Still a Subject of Great Britain. Recently new to this on-line book is a summary section in which I found the following information: "In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. I, 1789-1897, I discovered the following: Gentlemen of the Senate: Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled "An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same," I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely: The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina, to consist of the State of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of Georgia." March 4, 1791 (page 99). In George Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791, he declares the district of Columbia to be created and its borders established, he says further: "And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States..." This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of... . This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of..., but is actually the District State. Subjection of the States of... was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory. STOP THE PRESSES!! Note this carefully; This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States The Bank of the United States was from the same people who owned the Bank of England, hence the same type of deceptive name, which today comes across as The Federal Reserve, which is neither Federal nor a Reserve. This let the international bankers BACK INTO THE COLONIES! And they were then free to operate within the several colonies, called States for the sensibilities of the people therein, under the law of the flag, which simply states that the flag flying above the ship/building denotes the law enforced within that ship/building. OK? Good, now, START THE PRESSES!! Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, Sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution. (Now, while this was an act which had no basis in law or in the Constitution, there is a function in law called time. What this means is that even an illegal act becomes a moot point after sufficient time has passed. Since more than two hundred years has passed since Ol' George the First gifted us with the federal district states, you can safely assume that no challenge based on this being un-Constitutional will be successful.) The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme authority, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, over the District. Washington extended this District without Constitutional authority. Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the District States. As a result of the military rule imposed by Washington, District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States. THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED. The Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave him additional powers, thereby HE created District States, so the federal government could use the militias to crush the tax protesters in Pennsylvania, by Washington's order. Since the Judicial Districts already existed, why did they recreate them? Washington said he was dividing the United States into District States."... END OF QUOTE. There is more, and to understand fully, I urge you to read the entire book-on-line. However, the rest of this paragraph, as contained in the summary is, in my opinion, in error. The author of the summary goes on to talk about DIVIDING THE STATES, but that is not what happened. You must understand the difference between the United States and the united States. Washington divided the United States into districts, but he did not divide the united States because he did not have the authority to do so. The United States is formed BY the Constitution (and the Articles of Confederation); the united States are the union States, which formed the United States through the Articles of Confederation. This is a powerful distinction which must be understood for effective action in removing the legal disabilities of contractual obligations with the exclusive jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES. If it was not a powerful distinction, they would not have to contract you into the jurisdiction, but would assume all of the powers they desire without the "legal" niceties of a contract. To help understand a little better, look at Supreme Court Rule 45.1, which says that all process of that court is in the name of the president of the United States. The Supreme Court (and all courts subject to the rules laid down by the Supreme Court) can only be an executive branch (martial law) court. Since the ultimate court of appeal to all so-called courts now under the American BAR (British Accreditation Registry) Association in the United States is a martial law court, then all subordinate courts are also martial law courts operating in the federal districts originated by George Washington! How do you go into such a court and argue that the Income Tax is unconstitutional? Or that you do not owe the tax? What are you doing in that executive branch court if you do not owe the tax!? And yes, you are correct, there are no longer any courts of the old republic in operation, so there is no legal relief from the Democracy available. (When you are looking up the Constitution of 1789, go to the file marked 'FEDJURIS.ZIP', and read a speech by Judge Yankovich at Stanford University showing federal jurisdiction in the courts.) There are supposedly three branches of government “within” the United States; legislative, executive and judicial. All three branches of government are capable of having their own courts, i. e., legislative = legislative tribunal; executive = courts-martial (martial law under the president acting as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces) and the judicial, which must operate in the Union States only under the rules of the common law (it is important to note that the third branch of the government, the judicial branch, has never been activated as required by the Constitution). I know of no legitimate state courts, which would be courts of the people under common law, in America at this time (the highest court in the land is supposed to be the county court, which is a court of the people, and from which there is only a very limited ability to appeal). No court operating in America can be a common law court if the said court is under the BAR, which owes allegiance to a foreign power, i.e., The City. The author of the summary quoted above correctly identified the problem, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States of America. However, in reading his works, I doubt if he truly understood the real nature of the problem: There is no law in Washington, DC. Anything goes. Anything, that is, that someone is willing to pay enough to make it worth while for the 'politicians' to act. After all, the UNITED STATES has the best politicians money can buy! Of course, "anything goes" subject to their willingness to be bound by and enter into additional treaties. If you wish to understand what I mean, study the record of those in Washington, DC, and the treaties made with the Indians. It becomes very obvious that the only treaties made and kept by "them" are the ones which personally benefit "them". There is one more quote from the summary, concerning Patrick Henry's speech of June 5, 1788, which is very important here: "Mr. Chairman... I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my own mind. When I asked the question. I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and America may depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing--the expression, We the People, instead of the States of America. I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolite and dangerous. Is this a Monarchy, like England--a compact between Prince and people; with checks and balances on the former, to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland--and association of a number of independent States, each of which retain its individual sovereignty?" The Confederate States of America. Perhaps that makes more sense to you now. Perhaps you should read the first sentence of the March 1, 1781, Articles of Confederation: "To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the under signed Delegates of the States affixed to our Names, send greeting." And maybe just a little more of this foundation document, which is (supposedly) superior law to the Constitution: Article I. The Title of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America." Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||