[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: Who Controls the United States, Part 2 Who Controls the United States, Part 2 Wait…. How can we discuss this subject, unless we understand exactly what is the United States? Do you know? Or, are you simply accepting what you were told in the government’s schools? Have you studied the subject? No? Well, when did the United States begin as a legal entity? With the Constitution, right? Wrong. And no, it did not start with the Declaration of Independence either. IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America Please note the small u in united; united being a verb describing the States of America. Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union … The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America". Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777 In force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781 (By the way, there were 8 Presidents of the United States under the Articles of Confederation. Why are we not taught about this in the public schools? Why are we told that George Washington was the first President of the United States? Perhaps we will learn something about this as we go along.) An important note; http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1034953264 … Some months ago, I had the opportunity to visit the Amherst College library in Amherst, Mass., and stumbled across a rare volume published by the United States Senate in 1877, "The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and other Organic Laws of the United States." The organic laws serve as the foundation of the political and legal system of the United States, which must be faithfully adhered to or else the entire system is gradually and permanently undermined. Four key documents of U.S. organic law are the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. … http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010864.php But does the Declaration have any legal status such that these words can truly be deemed to state the American creed? It does, although virtually no one seems to know it. In 1878 Congress enacted a revised version of the United States Code that included a new first section entitled "The Organic Laws of the United States." The story behind the 1878 revision of the Code is told in the introduction to political scientist Richard Cox's valuable book Four Pillars of Constitutionalism: The Organic Laws of the United States. (Cox credits the idea for the book to Professor Harry Jaffa, Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute.) The Code is Congress's official compilation of federal law; the organic laws of the United States are the country's foundational laws. First and foremost of the four organic laws of the United States is the Declaration of Independence. Following the Declaration among the organic laws are the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. And to begin again; And here we have it. The beginning of the United States. So, what did the Constitution create? A City State, exclusive of the States united, and not subject to the Constitution: United States v. Cornell 25 Fed. Cas. 646, no. 14,867 C.C.D.R.I. 1819 … It is under the like terms in the same clause of the constitution that exclusive jurisdiction is now exercised by congress in the District of Columbia … In Downes v. Bidwell, 1901, the Supreme Court ruled that "exclusive" meant exactly that; EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction, with no control from the Constitution. (In Downes v. Bidwell, the Court ruled that "exclusive" meant "without consideration of the Constitutional restraints...") There are other court cases which detail this over the years, and since this is a situation that has existed for more than 200 years, we can rest assured that this was the intended result of the Constitution, regardless of what you may ´believe´ about the so-called founding fathers. And were the so-called founding fathers aware of exactly what Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, the Exclusive Jurisdiction clause of the Constitution, would do? (I often ask people how they can consider themselves free when the so-called President of the United States writes law, called Executive Orders, under his exclusive authority, publishes these Orders in the Federal Register for thirty days, and they become law, which can only be over-ridden by a super-majority of Congress, which has NEVER happened. Most never answer me, and if they do, it is only to mumble something like, well, it really isn´t law, because only Congress can pass laws. Sorry, Executive Orders are law.) So, when did the first Executive Order get written, and by whom, and for what reason? On the internet, at 'http://civil-liberties.com', is a very interesting on-line book titled The United States is Still a Subject of Great Britain. (More on this book later.) 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. 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 that had no basis in law or in the Constitution, there is a function in law called time. What this means that even an illegal act becomes a moot point after sufficient time has passed. Since more than two hundred years has passed since George gifted us with the federal district states, you can safely assume that no challenge based on this being un-Constitutional will be successful. Richard) 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."... It is interesting to note here that George Washington was titled Esquire, and widely known to be the richest man in the Colonies. "Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641. So, in Black’s Law Dictionary, it is admitted that Esquire is of British law. This definition specifically says: In English Law. Esquire is a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, through, first, the International BAR, and then through the local BAR, and this is a title which is below Knight and above a yeoman--common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the following definition. "Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown.... for whosoever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p.561-562. To fully begin to understand what I am writing, 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 was formed BY the Articles of Confederation; the united States are the union States (see the Declaration of Independence), which formed the United States through the Articles of Confederation. This is a powerful distinction that must be understood for effective action in removing the legal disabilities of contractual obligations with the exclusive jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES (if this is something that you desire to do; most people are comfortable being slaves). 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. (Short break; I have posted today another paper titled; Gold Fringed Flag. I suggest that you stop here, and read that paper RIGHT NOW!) 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 Regency - more on the BAR in Part 3) 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!? Wait wait wait….. I said, contractual obligations. How do you enter into a contract? You sign something, right? Social Security Enabling Act of 1935 The Social Security Act of 1935 (See Section 8; Income Tax) http://www.nationalcenter.org/SocialSecurityAct.html TITLE VIII- TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages … DEDUCTIBILITY FROM INCOME TAX SEC. 803. For the purposes of the income tax imposed by Title I of the Revenue Act of 1934 or by any Act of Congress in substitution therefor, the tax imposed by section 801 shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year in which such tax is deducted from his wages. COLLECTION AND PAYMENT OF TAXES SEC. 807. (a) The taxes imposed by this title shall be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal- revenue collections. … Did you not sign a contract when you asked for and received a Social Security number, issued by the federal government? Perhaps you should consider this before you become involved in any tax protest movement. Read the following carefully to begin to fully understand; http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/FedSubjMtrJurisdiction.htm As we explain throughout this website, our national government of the United States legislates for two distinct territorial jurisdictions. The Federal Zone, which includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands. This jurisdiction is also referred to as the "territorial jurisdiction" or the areas over which the sovereignty of the government of the united States extends. The sovereign 50 states of the Union of states. These states are foreign governments with respect to the United States. They are also referred to as "foreign countries" in 28 U.S.C. §297 and 26 CFR §1.911-2(h) and "foreign states" in 28 U.S.C. §1603. Terms clarifying these concepts appear below: Foreign government: "The government of the United States of America as distinguished from the government of the several states." [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition] Foreign laws: "The laws of a foreign country or sister state." [Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition] Foreign States: "Nations outside of the United States...Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state. The term "foreign nations', ...should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence, one state of the Union is foreign to another, in that sense." [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition] Unless expressly provided otherwise in the law itself, all laws passed by the U.S. Congress shall conclusively be presumed to apply only within the former, or first of the two jurisdictions, called the federal zone, above. "A canon of construction which teaches that of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222 (1949) All of this is confirmed by Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers, who said at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1050.htm: "With respect to our State and federal governments, I do not think their relations are correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the State governments are reserved all legislative and administration, in affairs which concern their own citizens only, and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners, or the citizens of the other States; these functions alone being made federal. The one is domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government; neither having control over the other, but within its own department." -- Thomas Jefferson ["Writing of Thomas Jefferson" pub by Taylor & Maury, Washington DC, 1854, quote number VII 355-61, from correspondence to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824.] The important question then arises: "How can we know which laws apply to each jurisdiction?" Here are the ways: First, we examine the U.S. Constitution to determine the specific delegated power from which the authority to legislate derives. If Congress is exercising a delegated power authorized by the Constitution as applicable within the 50 states, then it applies there as well as in the federal zone. Next we look at the definition of the term "United States" used in the legislation or statutes themselves. If legislation refers to the District of Columbia as its meaning of the word "State", for instance, such as the Internal Revenue Code does in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9), then the legislation must be presumed to only apply within the federal zone. To apply only within the federal zone… as applied to United States citizens, for instance, which only exist WITHIN the federal zone. And are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. I suspect that this is sufficient for today, especially since the post the Gold Fringed Flag is up as well. Please, stay tuned for Who Controls the United States, Part 3, where I will finish this part of the story, What is the United States. Richard
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||