[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The INCREDIBLE Impacts of Methylene Blue The LARGEST Eruptions since the Merapi Disaster in 2010 at Lewotobi Laki Laki in Indonesia Feds ARREST 11 Leftists For AMBUSH On ICE, 2 Cops Shot, Organized Terror Cell Targeted ICE In Texas What is quantum computing? 12 Important Questions We Should Be Asking About The Cover Up The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein TSA quietly scraps security check that every passenger dreads Iran Receives Emergency Airlift of Chinese Air Defence Systems as Israel Considers New Attacks Russia reportedly used its new, inexpensive Chernika kamikaze drone in the Ukraine Iran's President Says the US Pledged Israel Wouldn't Attack During Previous Nuclear Negotiations Will Japan's Rice Price Shock Lead To Government Collapse And Spark A Global Bond Crisis Beware The 'Omniwar': Catherine Austin Fitts Fears 'Weaponization Of Everything' Roger Stone: AG Pam Bondi Must Answer For 14 Terabytes Claim Of Child Torture Videos! 'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats Texas Flood Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ? Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia 329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive

Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: I have a question for the forum
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 2, 2006
Author: richard9151
Post Date: 2006-10-02 11:15:18 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 1654
Comments: 128

A few of you have read More Blonde Jokes II, and perhaps are beginning to see a little of where I am coming from. Fewer of you have read the posts, Who Controls the United States and Who Controls the United States Part 2.

The next post that I put up will be, as I promised in More Blonde Jokes II, The Bar. This next post is, to me at any rate, an important post, and I need, if possible, a little feed back so I can finish tweaking the post. So, if you feel so inclined, please answer a couple of questions for me. (By all means, if you would rather answer in private, that is not a problem!)

1. Were you aware of any of the material contained in More Blonde Jokes II?

2. Specifically, were you aware of the Federal District States?

3. Were you aware of this?

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.

4. Were you aware of this?

... our national government of the United States legislates for two distinct territorial jurisdictions.

5. Were you aware that George Washington signed the first ever Excutive Order, and what was contained in that Order?

6. Are you interested in learning about a solution to this problem?

7. I am going to establish a group within the forum. To this group I will ping when I post updates or new Posts that have to do with this subject; The Solution. Are you interested in my placing your name to be pinged? Without a yes answer to this question, I will not add your name to the list. I also reserve the right to not add your name to the list if I feel that is in the best interest of the group, and of 4um.

A simple yes of no to the questions is fine. Thank you all, Richard

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 123.

#18. To: richard9151 (#0)

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.

I'm not seeing that.

Here's 28 USC 297, as per http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/....html

---

§ 297. Assignment of judges to courts of the freely associated compact states

(a) The Chief Justice or the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit may assign any circuit or district judge of the Ninth
Circuit, with the consent of the judge so assigned, to serve temporarily as a
judge of any duly constituted court of the freely associated compact states
whenever an official duly authorized by the laws of the respective compact state
requests such assignment and such assignment is necessary for the proper
dispatch of the business of the respective court.

(b) The Congress consents to the acceptance and retention by any judge so
authorized of reimbursement from the countries referred to in subsection (a) of
all necessary travel expenses, including transportation, and of subsistence, or
of a reasonable per diem allowance in lieu of subsistence. The judge shall
report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts any amount
received pursuant to this subsection. 

Here's 26 CFR §1.911-2(h). Source:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/....TEXT

    (h) Foreign country. The term ``foreign country'' when used in a 
geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of a 
government other than that of the United States. It includes the 
territorial waters of the foreign country (determined in accordance with 
the laws of the United States), the air space over the foreign country, 
and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent 
to the territorial waters of the foreign country and over which the 
foreign country has exclusive rights, in accordance with international 
law, with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural 
resources.

With this definition, yn order to say the 50 states are foreign countries, you also have to show that the law says that the 50 states are "under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States".

And here's 28 USC 1603, source:

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

---

§ 1603. Definitions

For purposes of this chapter—
(a) A “foreign state”, except as used in section 1608 of this title, includes a
political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a
foreign state as defined in subsection (b).
(b) An “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” means any entity—
(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and
(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a
majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state
or political subdivision thereof, and
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in
section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third
country.
(c) The “United States” includes all territory and waters, continental or
insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(d) A “commercial activity” means either a regular course of commercial conduct
or a particular commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an
activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct
or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose.
(e) A “commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state”
means commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial
contact with the United States. 

---

The last of these seems to come closest to what you say because "United States" is not defined to include the 50 states, BUT "foreign state" is not defined using the term "United States" at all. In any event, these definitions only apply to chapter 97 of Title 28 (and not the entire US code, of course).

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-10-02   13:59:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

(c) The “United States” includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

This is one of the worst legal defintions I've ever seen.

AngelSpawn  posted on  2006-10-02   14:40:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Circular definitions involving "United States" are not uncommon in the code.

It makes you really appreciate the value of having a non-generic name for a country, which we don't have here. "Canada" and "Mexico" have unique singular names, but the USA does not.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-10-02   15:46:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Circular definitions involving "United States" are not uncommon in the code.

Circular defintions are by nature confusing or deceptive. I'm not a wacky Coincidence Theorist. ; )

AngelSpawn  posted on  2006-10-02   15:48:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Circular defintions are by nature confusing or deceptive.

But of course, and well said. It is important to note that Congress uses one dictionary to write law, but the attorneys use another, Blacks Law Dictionary, to find the secrets hidden in the code; the definitions in Blacks change constantly due to the attorneys finding new definitions for the words used in the code, but the original dictionary used by Congress NEVER changes.

It is also interesting to note that Blacks Law Dictionary has a list of the English Monarchies Regnal Years on the last page of the book. That is something REALLY REALLY important to me, ya know?

richard9151  posted on  2006-10-02   18:23:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

It is important to note that Congress uses one dictionary to write law,

Actually "Congress" is not a monolithic body that restricts itself to one particular source for the meaning of legal terms. They are lawyers themselves and doctors, businessmen, etc. Many terms are 'terms of art' that develop over time in society at large. Were there in fact a single source relied upon by Congress, there would not be so much effort expended by the courts archiving the minutes and notes of congressional deliberations to ascertain what Congress meant by any particular provision - "one dictionary to write law" (as you phrased it) used by Congress could be consulted, but alas, it does not exist.

but the attorneys use another, Blacks Law Dictionary, to find the secrets hidden in the code;

Actually there are many law dictionaries used by attorneys; e.g. Bouvier's is another widely referenced source, and then there are specialty dictionaries as well.

the definitions in Blacks change constantly due to the attorneys finding new definitions for the words used in the code, but the original dictionary used by Congress NEVER changes.

Black's changes (as do other dictionaries) when new terms of art come into use. For example, my 5th ed Black's (1979) does not have "Hedge Fund" defined, but the 7th ed (1999) does. Legal language evolves, legal dictionaires keep pace, no more, no less.

It is also interesting to note that Blacks Law Dictionary has a list of the English Monarchies Regnal Years on the last page of the book. That is something REALLY REALLY important to me, ya know?

If you were actually pursuing the derivation and basis for the meaning of some common law terms, many of which originate in English law, you'd have to pursue cites which reference British statutes, which cites identify the regnal year in which the source British statute was enacted. Obviously the US laws are not cited in this way and so a table of US presidents is not needed.

Starwind  posted on  2006-10-02   19:14:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Actually "Congress" is not a monolithic body that restricts itself to one particular source for the meaning of legal terms. They are lawyers themselves and doctors, businessmen, etc.

My info is that the politicians don't actually pen the laws they sponsor. Instead they are penned by congressional lawyers that work for the politicians. They are told to write a law that does such n so, and they write them.

Black's changes (as do other dictionaries) when new terms of art come into use. For example, my 5th ed Black's (1979) does not have "Hedge Fund" defined, but the 7th ed (1999) does. Legal language evolves, legal dictionaires keep pace, no more, no less.

Though they do change definitions too. The definition of "driving" has changed quite a bit over the years. The Black's law dictionary derives its definitions from court cases, so when/if a court decision includes a term definition, it gets incorporated into Black's law.

Not exactly the best way to go about things but that's how it works.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-10-02   21:31:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

My info is that the politicians don't actually pen the laws they sponsor. Instead they are penned by congressional lawyers that work for the politicians. They are told to write a law that does such n so, and they write them.

One of the most frustrating aspects of law research is trying find the author(s) of particular laws. I suspect that many laws are pushed by special interests that hide behind the anonymity of writing legislation that's then pushed by their pet legislator.

AngelSpawn  posted on  2006-10-02   21:38:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

It's hard to believe that special interests would NOT pen proposed legislation that is simply accepted by politicians and copied into a bill.

The 16th amendment was likely penned by the major banking interests.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-10-02   21:43:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The 16th amendment was likely penned by the major banking interests.

The Federal Reseve Act of 1913 most certainly was.

In a just world, the names of a law's authors and references to their notes would be required, by law, to be included in the law. No names, no notes - no law.

AngelSpawn  posted on  2006-10-02   21:48:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

I've always thought that meant the US Senate must be chosen by the states.

Dakmar  posted on  2006-10-02   21:55:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I've always thought that meant the US Senate must be chosen by the states.

They were.

Until the 17th Amendment came along.

Supposedly there was a corruption problem related to the legislature's appointing senators, and making the senators elected by the people was the solution.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-10-02   21:58:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Supposedly there was a corruption problem related to the legislature's appointing senators, and making the senators elected by the people was the solution.

In my cynical view and while it sounds appealing on its face (sort of like adding "for the children" to any proposed legsilation), the 17th was a further dilution of rights and power of the various states--the sheeple being more easily manipulated and swayed in elections than a deliberative, legsilative state representaive assembly.

wbales  posted on  2006-10-02   22:05:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I think the 17th was the one and only nail needed to seal the coffin for states rights. There's a reason why the president is elected by electoral college and why he's called "President of the United States" and not "President of the American People". He's supposed to be elected by the states because they are the subjects of the union, not the American people!

The average person isn't *supposed* to care who the president is, as that's purely a matter of concern only for state legislatures. By original design, anyway.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-10-02   22:15:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I think the 17th was the one and only nail needed to seal the coffin for states rights.

The Commerce Clause run amok was a mighty big factor, too.

wbales  posted on  2006-10-02   22:30:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 123.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 123.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]