[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: From "unalienable" to "inalienable": One letter changed! - How our Rights became alienable when States became STATES From "unalienable" to "inalienable": One letter changed! How our Rights became alienable when States became STATES Quotes from the Iowa CONSTITUTION below have been copied from the following URL: www.legis.state.ia.us/Constitution.html Let us look at the 1857 CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IOWA -- "CODIFIED" Question: What does the word "CODIFIED" mean? Obviously it means written down and organized into "code" form. But codes apply ONLY to corporations and corporate fictional identities, not to flesh and blood human beings. "1857 CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IOWA -- CODIFIED" Note that the title of Iowa's 1857 CONSTITUTION is now written in ALL CAPS, the same "style" used to denote our corporate fiction STRAW MAN name and to denote the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, created in 1871 by Congress in the "Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia," as well as the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as distinct from the original Constitution for the United States of America. Look closely at the image below and note the name given to the Constitution in the document itself (look above the letter "l" in "Article. 1.") The Constitutions titles itself "this Constitution for the United States of America." The official transcript confirms this: http://www.archives.gov/national...stitution_transcript.html We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Yet look at the title on the same page! What is wrong with this picture? For a modern response to our government having departed from its original purpose, see: http://www.startup-enterprises.com/doi2003.html On Monday Dec. 1, 2003 the Congress convenes and the Declaration will be available for signatures. [ATKHWDI Note: above website is down; posted here: Declaration of Independence, 2003 http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=85514 As GWB says, the Constitution is just a G-d piece of paper.] Section 34 of this "Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia," by the Forty-First Congress of the United States, Session III, Chapter 61 and 62, enacted February 21, 1871, states that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation, whose jurisdiction is applicable only in the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia and to whatever properties are legally titled to the UNITED STATES, by its registration in the corporate County, State, and Federal governments that are under military power of the UNITED STATES and its creditors. Under this provision, the military Congress of the UNITED STATES had obtained the power to pass private international law for application within the federal District of Columbia. All States of the Union adopted new legislatively created 'conditions' and 'codified' their laws under federal mandate. State 'codes' were unlawfully adopted despite their origin as instruments of sovereign people. However, We the People remained sovereign. Where did the Congress find the authority in the Constitution to reconstitute any part of the united States as a corporation? Quite simply, the 1791 Constitution was set aside to make room for the corporation. Would this Act benefit the Republic? No, the private, corporate bottom line is profit. The municipal, public bottom line is service. To replace our service-oriented form of government with a profit-oriented form of government without our knowledge or consent can only be described as treason. When the States 'codified' their laws under federal mandate, they changed from sovereign States to federally mandated STATES. STATE CONSTITUTIONS took the original word unalienable, pronounced unaleenable, in the Declaration of Independence and changed it to inalienable, pronounced inaylEanabul. Look, for example, at the relevant language in the present CONSTITUTION of my home State of Iowa: ARTICLE I. BILL OF RIGHTS. SECTION 1. of this 1857 CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IOWA -- CODIFIED. Every one of the corporate STATES; made this change from Unalienable to Inalienable in their CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF _______. The word "unalienable" breaks down pronunciation-wise into un - alien - able (un-aleen-abul). The word "inalienable" breaks down into in - alien - able (in-aylEan-abul). The word meaning has been completely changed along with the pronunciation. Dictionaries do NOT note this legal distinction, nor do they offer the correct pronunciation. For example Merriam Webster Online offers the following: One entry found for unalienable. Main Entry: un-alien-able http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?unalie01.wav=unalienable <-- Note that this pronunciation link says "un-aylEan-abul" instead of the correct "un-aleen-abul". Pronunciation: "&n-'Al-y&-n&-b&l, -'A-lE-&- Function: adjective Date: 1611 : INALIENABLE <-- This indicates that unalienable and inalienable are synonyms. They are NOT. One entry found for inalienable. Main Entry: in-alien-able http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?inalie01.wav=inalienable <-- Note that this pronunciation link says "in-aylEan-abul" instead of offering the alternative "in-aleen-abul". Pronunciation: (")i-'nAl-y&-n&-b&l, -'nA-lE-&-n&- Function: adjective Etymology: probably from French inali33;nable, from in- + ali33;nable alienable Date: circa 1645 : incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred - in33;alien33;abil33;i33;ty /-"nAl-y&-n&-'bi-l&-tE, -"nA-lE-&-n&-/ noun Reflect for a moment on the incredible control over media, publishers and all other sources of information that must be required to make sure that even dictionaries do not alert us to the significance of the change of word meaning that comes with the spelling change from Unalienable in the Declaration of Independence to Inalienable in our STATE CONSTITUTIONS. The legal distinction between Unalienable and Inalienable becomes obvious if you first recognize the meaning of the word "lien" and how both "Unalienable" and "Inalienable" are referring to whether our rights are "lienable" or "alienable". The word "lien" has to do with preparing to grab possession, as when the IRS or a legitimate creditor places a lien on property to secure payment of a debt. Main Entry: lien Pronunciation: 'lEn, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?lien0002.wav=lien 'lE-&n http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?lien0001.wav=lien Function: noun Etymology: Middle French, tie, band, from Latin ligamen, from ligare to bind -- more at LIGATURE Date: 1531 1 : a charge upon real or personal property for the satisfaction of some debt or duty ordinarily arising by operation of law 2 : the security interest created by a mortgage One entry found for alien. Main Entry: 3alien Pronunciation: A-lEn = uh-leen It matters not how the word un-alien-able is pronounced. Either way the prefix "un" denotes being "NOT in" "aylEan-abul" status or "NOT in" "aleen-abul" status = NOT capable of being alienated or liened. Un alienable rights = NOT IN alienable status = NOT alienable = Rights can NOT be liened, alienated, grabbed, or taken away. It matters not how the word in-alien-able is pronounced. Either way the prefix "in" denotes being "in" "aylEan-abul" status or "in" "aleen-abul" status = capable of being alienated or liened. In alienable rights = IN alienable status = YES, alienable = Rights can be (and, by the way, HAVE BEEN) liened, alienated, grabbed, and taken away. Here is the beginning of the text of the 1857 CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IOWA -- CODIFIED: Preamble. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa, the boundaries whereof shall be as follows: Boundaries. Beginning in the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi River, at a point due East of the middle of the mouth of the main channel of the Des Moines River, thence up the middle of the main channel of the said Des Moines River, to a point on said river where the Northern boundary line of the State of Missouri--as established by the constitution of that State--adopted June 12th, 1820--crosses the said middle of the main channel of the said Des Moines River; thence Westwardly along the said Northern boundary line of the State of Missouri, as established at the time aforesaid, until an extension of said line intersects the middle of the main channel of the Missouri River; thence up the middle of the main channel of the said Missouri River to a point opposite the middle of the main channel of the Big Sioux River, according to Nicollett's Map; thence up the main channel of the said Big Sioux River, according to the said map, until it is intersected by the parallel of forty three degrees and thirty minutes North latitude; thence East along said parallel of forty three degrees and thirty minutes until said parallel intersects the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi River; thence down the middle of the main channel of said Mississippi River to the place of beginning. See boundary compromise agreements at the end of Volume IV of the Code ARTICLE I. Rights of persons. SECTION 1. All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. Amended 1998, Amendment [45] Political power. SEC. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it. ================ Poster comment See also: "Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights. Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892) Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IN HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY, SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. . . The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that 'all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly, is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the constitution. It is what no legislature has a right to do; and no contract to that end can be binding on subsequent legislatures. . . BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884) "Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as "the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;" and therefore it has been justly said, that "absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security--the right of personal liberty--and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Potter's Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429. From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature, by a private act, affecting particular persons ONLY, can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another? VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795) ("[T]he Due Process Clause protects [the unalienable liberty recognized in the Declaration of Independence] rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations." SANDIN v. CONNER, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) In the second article of the Declaration of Rights, which was made part of the late Constitution of Pennsylvania, it is declared: 'That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding; and that no man ought or of right can be compelled, to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent; nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be, vested in, or assumed, by any power whatever, that shall, in any case, interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.' (Dec. of Rights, Art. 2.). . . (The Judge then read the 1st. 8th. and 11th articles of the Declaration of Rights; and the 9th. and 46th sections of the Constitution of Pennsylvania. See 1 Vol. Dall. Edit. Penn. Laws p. 55. 6. 60. in the Appendix.) From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the social compact, and, by the late Constitution of Pennsylvania, was made a fundamental law. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795) I had thought it self-evident that all men were endowed by their Creator with liberty as one of the cardinal unalienable rights. It is that basic freedom which the Due Process Clause protects, rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations. . . It demeans the holding in Morrissey - more importantly it demeans the concept of liberty itself - to ascribe to that holding nothing more than a protection of an interest that the State has created through its own prison regulations. For if the inmate's protected liberty interests are no greater than the State chooses to allow, he is really little more than the slave described in the 19th century cases. I think it clear that even the inmate retains an unalienable interest in liberty - at the very minimum the right to be treated with dignity - which the Constitution may never ignore. MEACHUM v. FANO, 427 U.S. 215 (1976)......" more..... http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm ============= Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. We give consent by taking their social security number, using their zip codes and ALL CAPS State Abbreviations, getting their licenses, using their Federal Reserve Notes, etc. etc. Were we informed we were giving up our inherent RIGHTS for PRIVILEGES that can be taken away? No. We were defrauded into giving up our rights. We were FORCED to give up our rights upon threat of IMPRISONMENT and THEFT: ".....****all law is contract, whereby solving the problem is achieved by invoking contract law. All contracts, both express and implied, must be formulated in accordance with the universal essentials of contract law concerning the interaction between the parties. These fundamentals are well codified in many places, e.g. the California Civil Code, Sections 1549 et seq.: 33; 1549. Contract, what A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing. 1550. Essential elements of contract It is essential to the existence of a contract that there should be: 1. Parties capable of contracting; 2. **** Their consent; 3. Lawful object; and, 4. A sufficient cause or consideration. 1556. Who may contract All persons are capable of contracting, except minors, persons of unsound mind, and persons deprived of civil rights. 1565. Essentials of consent The consent of the parties to a contract must be: 1. Free; 2. Mutual; and, 3. Communicated by each to the other. 33; 1567. An apparent consent is not real or free when obtained through: 1. Duress; 2. Menace; 3. Fraud; 4. Undue influence; or 5. Mistake. 1598. When contract wholly void Where a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance, or so vaguely expressed as to be wholly unascertainable, the entire contract is void. 33; 1608. Effect of its illegality If any part of single consideration for one or more objects, or of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the entire contract is void. 33; 1620. Express contract, what An express contract is one, the terms of which are stated in words. 33; 1621. Implied contract, what An implied contract is one, the existence and terms of which are manifested by conduct. 33; 1441. Impossible or unlawful conditions void A condition in a contract, the fulfillment of which is impossible or unlawful, within the meaning of the article on the object of contracts, or which is repugnant to the nature of the interest created by the contract, is void. 33; 1636. Contracts, how to be interpreted A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful. 33; 1668. Certain contracts unlawful All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law. [ATKHWDI NOTE: The United States government and the 'Federal' 'Reserve' are private corporations. Most corporations can sue and be sued. WHY NOT THESE TWO??] 33; 1709. Fraudulent deceit One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers. A major Achilles heal of the system is that it is founded on lies, deceit, concealment of material fact, misrepresentation, duress, menace, fraud, undue influence, mistake, absence of valuable consideration, and no free mutual consent, i.e. the absence of essentially every required element for the existence of a valid contract. In short, the alleged presumption of an existing contract is a lie33;no contract exists, based on the absence of true agreement derived from full disclosure of all terms and conditions, i.e. no mutual understanding by all involved parties of everything with which the parties are allegedly agreeing......" [will post entire article soon] All law is contract....the original Constitution does not apply in the courts today, which exist to administer the BANKRUPTCY OF THE UNITED STATES, imposed on America by the fraudulent activities of the International banksters et al. Have the American people been made aware that the United States is a private corporation operating in a conspiratorial mode for the benefit of the Judeo-Babylonian ANTICHRIST International money-changers, and that they are being FORCED AT RISK OF IMPRISONMENT AND GUNPOINT to take on the debts, amounting to TRILLIONS OF UNPAYABLE DOLLARS, that said private corporation has fraudulently imposed on them for the express purpose of DESTROYING THEM AND CONFISCATING THEIR WEALTH AND ENSLAVING THEM AND THEIR POSTERITY FOREVER? [Ezekiel 38:13, Micah 4:11, Psalm 2, etc.] NO!!! Power to contract and to UNCONTRACT is the law of the land [and the whole global plantation.] See Hale vs. Henkel: #TL17: What's Wrong with the U.S. and Other Countries "We know that Hale vs. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, ... http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl17.shtml We need a Moses to stand up to Pharaoh to say for God, LET MY PEOPLE GO, THAT THEY MAY SERVE ME. http://www.blueletterbible.org/c...mal.x=0&search_normal.y=0
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#0)
We need a Moses to stand up to Pharaoh to say for God, LET MY PEOPLE GO, THAT THEY MAY SERVE ME. here's one... Meet Your UCC Straw Man by Moses G. Washington freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=85622
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
".....****all law is contract, whereby solving the problem is achieved by invoking contract law. All contracts, both express and implied, must be formulated in accordance with the universal essentials of contract law concerning the interaction between the parties..... All law is contract....the original Constitution does not apply in the courts today, which exist to administer the BANKRUPTCY OF THE UNITED STATES, imposed on America by the fraudulent activities of the International banksters et al. Have the American people been made aware that the United States is a private corporation operating in a conspiratorial mode for the benefit of the Judeo-Babylonian ANTICHRIST International money-changers, and that they are being FORCED AT RISK OF IMPRISONMENT AND GUNPOINT to take on the debts, amounting to TRILLIONS OF UNPAYABLE DOLLARS, that said private corporation has fraudulently imposed on them for the express purpose of DESTROYING THEM AND CONFISCATING THEIR WEALTH AND ENSLAVING THEM AND THEIR POSTERITY FOREVER? [Ezekiel 38:13, Micah 4:11, Psalm 2, etc.] NO!!! Power to contract and to UNCONTRACT is the law of the land [and the whole global plantation.] See Hale vs. Henkel: ".....The United States Constitution Protects Our "INDIVIDUAL" Right To Contract in "Privacy!" See: United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states: "The"individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." HALE V. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel is binding on all the courts of the United States of America until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. No other Supreme Court case has ever overturned Hale v. Henkel None of the various issues of Hale v. Henkel has ever been overruled Since 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by the Federal and State Appellate Court systems over 1,600 times! In nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on precedent authority of the cited case. Compared with other previously decided Supreme Court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts. "Speak softly and carry a big stick!" Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the united States of America (1901-1909) "DON’T TREAD ON ME!" Each U.S. Citizen has the SOVEREIGN RIGHTS of an "Individual" Nation "GUARANTEED" to them by The United States Constitution! This fact alone makes the united States of America the "only" multitude of Nations in existence. Genesis 48:19....." [SEE http://famguardian.org . Supreme Court has ruled that states are nations: "....See Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519; 10 L.Ed. 274 (1839), in which the Supreme Court ruled: "The States between each other are sovereign and independent. They are distinct and separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. **** They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and objects of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of each State, when not so yielded up, remain absolute."....." http://famguardian.org/Subjects/...p/NotACitizenUnderIRC.htm ] GET THAT GOLD FRING OFF MY FLAG! http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I [am] God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation [ http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mic/Mic004.html#7 ] and a company of nations [see above] shall be of thee, and kings [SEE GALATIANS 3:16-29/REVELATION 5:9-10] shall come out of thy loins; http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen035.html#11 / http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Gen/35/11.html Gen 48:4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land [SEE http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Deu/Deu011.html#24 / http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Rom/8/17.html ] to thy seed after thee [for] an everlasting possession. Move over British Empire, and shut your mouth [ http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa052.html#15 ]: The United States Is Still a British Colony http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=85521 Genesis 15:13-14/Galatians 3:16-29/Ezekiel 17:1-6/Ezekiel 17:7-10/John 15:1-2/Matthew 15:12-13
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
GREAT POST! I don't think even 1 out of a couple hundred thousand people understand this.
1668. Certain contracts unlawful All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law. [ATKHWDI NOTE: The United States government and the 'Federal' 'Reserve' are private corporations. Most corporations can sue and be sued. WHY NOT THESE TWO??] JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS District of Columbia On May 3d, 1802 an Act was passed to incorporate the City of Washington. (2 Stat. at L. 195.) It invested the mayor and common council (the latter being elected by the white male inhabitants) with all the usual powers of municipal bodies, such as the power to pass by-laws and ordinances; powers of administration, regulation and taxation; amongst others specially named, ... p. 233 This general review of the form of government which prevailed in the District of Columbia and the City of Washington prior to 1871 is sufficient to show that it was strictly municipal in its character; p. 233 In 1871 an important modification was made in the form of the district government -- a Legislature was established, with all the apparatus of a distinct government. By the Act of February 21st, of that year, entitled "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia (16 Stat. at L. 419), it was enacted (sec. 1) that all that territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia by which name it was constituted a "a body corporate for municipal purposes," with power to make contracts, sue and be sued, and "to exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. p 233 This Constitution lasted until June 20th, 1874, when an Act was passed entitled "An Act for the Government of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." (18 Stat. at L. 116) By this Act the government established by the Act of 1871 was abolished. p 234 By a subsequent Act, approved June 11th, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102), it was enacted that the District of Columbia should "remain and continue a municipal corporation," as provided in section two of the Revised Statutes relating to said District, and the appointment of commissioners was provided for, to have and to exercise similar powers given to the commissioners appointed under the Act of 1874. All rights of action and suits for and against the District were expressly preserved in status quo. p. 234 All municipal governments are but agencies of the superior power of the State or government by which they are constituted, and are invested with only such subordinate powers of local legislation and control as the superior Legislature sees fit to confer upon them. p. 234 The people are the recognized source of all authority, state or municipal, and to this authority it must come at last, whether immediately or by circuitous route. Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540, 545 [23: 440, 441]. p 234 Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 2 Cranch, 445 [ 2:332 ], where the question was whether a citizen of the District could sue in the circuit courts of the United States as a citizen of a State. The court did not deny that the District of Columbia is a State in the sense of being a distinct political community; but held that the word "State" in the Constitution, where it extends the judicial power to cases between citizens of the several "States," refers to the States of the Union. It is undoubtedly true that the District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a State; but the sovereign power of this qualified State is not lodged in the corporation of the District of Columbia, but in the government of the United States. Its supreme legislative body is Congress. The subordinate legislative powers of a municipal character which have been or may lodged in the city corporations, or in the District of Columbia, do not make those bodies sovereign. Crimes committed in the District are not crimes against the District, but against the United States. Therefore, whilst the District may, in a sense, be called a State, it is such in a very qualified sense. No more than this was meant by Chief Justice Taney, when, in the Bank of Alexandria v. Dryer, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 141, 146 [10: 391], he spoke of the District of Columbia as being formed, by the Acts of Congress, into one separate political community, . . . p. 234 We are clearly of the opinion that the plaintiff is a municipal corporation, having a right to sue and be sued, and subject to the ordinary rules that govern the law of procedure between private persons. [The Metropolitan Railroad Company v. District of Columbia] http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dccases/metrorrc.htm So what does this mean? They can rule over us, and sue us, but not be sued? What's good for the goose is not good for the gander? They bind burdens heavy to be borne, and lift not one with their little finger. So much for equal justice for "persons" under 'the law'. If the district, the jurisdiction from which CorpUSA runs roughshod over the nation, can't be sued, then maybe the best thing would be for the "sovereign authority", the people, to abolish it....OR, we apply another remedy [under HJR 192...coming up]. Now, what about the "Federal" Reserve, a private, mostly foreign, corporation? What makes them so "special", I wonder.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
Shoot, I only half-understand it myself. I used to see it discussed at 4um a couple of years or so ago, but it seems to have gone off the radar. With the Banksters getting ready to foreclose on the nation, I figured I'd dredge it up again as food for thought. [ Micah 4:13 in the back of my mind, doncha know.] I know there are people on here who DO understand it , and hopefully they will explain it to the rest of us, until we ALL understand it, and use it to our advantage. Where do these PTB get off, harnessing our people to their war chariots, stealing our gold, destroying our industries, making us collateral and auctioning us off like cattle to pay off THEIR debts, and make us pay usury for them to create "money" out of thin air, so that they can sell that paper crap to our other enemies to entice them to come on over and conquer us to take our land in compensation, in their little NWO plot to rule the world from that Whore of Babylon [old Jerusalem].
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||