The Corporate U.S. Admiralty on Land, began with DC Organic Act Feb. 21, 1871.

Author Topic: The Corporate U.S. Admiralty on Land, began with DC Organic Act Feb. 21, 1871.  (Read 47616 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline VALiberaltarian

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #40 on: February 26, 2009, 06:24:16 PM »
OK I just read all 12 pages of the posted document and it clearly states that it is creating a municipal corporation to service the administration of the District of Columbia. It then proceeds to lay out quite a bit of detail on the procedural legalisms of the district, clearly stating that the district and the corporation are subservient to the preexisting federal government. What specific language in there even comes close suspending the constitution and superseding the authority of the preexisting government with a corporate charter?


JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #41 on: February 26, 2009, 07:36:54 PM »
OK I just read all 12 pages of the posted document and it clearly states that it is creating a municipal corporation to service the administration of the District of Columbia. It then proceeds to lay out quite a bit of detail on the procedural legalisms of the district, clearly stating that the district and the corporation are subservient to the preexisting federal government. What specific language in there even comes close suspending the constitution and superseding the authority of the preexisting government with a corporate charter?



Please find the bolded language of your post for me, in the Act... I found the phrases "consistent with" and "not inconsistent with," but do not recall running across the word "subservient"... I haven't read it in a few months though, so I will read it again to refresh.

It is not specific language, that betrays it... It is how it is organized, administered, and by whom that is worrisome...

--Oldyoti

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom;
and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more,
it will lose that, too."

~Somerset Maugham

Offline VALiberaltarian

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #42 on: February 26, 2009, 10:34:23 PM »
OK fair enough, I draw your attention to section 18:

"That the legislative power of the District shall extent to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistant with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act...."

"but all acts of the legislative assembly shall at all times be subject to repeal or modification by the Congress of the United States, and nothing herein shall be construed to deprive Congress of the power of legislation over said District in as ample manner as if this law had not been enacted."

And section 31 explicitly discusses required oaths to uphold the constitution and under what conditions they must be met.

And section 25 states that the judiciary in DC cannot be restructured or changed without an explicit act of congress.

Those are just examples I picked out of the subservience to the pre-existing federal government. There's more in there. The way I understand it from reading this document the municipal corporation of DC has just enough power to wipe it's butt and not an ounce more. It certainly doesn't provide any legal grounds for overturning the constitution.

The organization and administration is normal and fairly obvious for something like this. You all do know that many (if not most) municipalities are also corporations? That's why you see the incorporated on the sign going into town, so the corporate status in this case is only as sinister as it is in any other case.

So what's the story about the by whom?       

Offline maim

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
    • NewWorldOrderNWO
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 26, 1871.
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2009, 12:10:32 PM »
Is the sitting Congress the real Congress?
no, they are a board of directors for firm called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Offline maim

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
    • NewWorldOrderNWO
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2009, 12:17:41 PM »


The organization and administration is normal and fairly obvious for something like this. You all do know that many (if not most) municipalities are also corporations? That's why you see the incorporated on the sign going into town, so the corporate status in this case is only as sinister as it is in any other case.
       
indeed, all levels, fed, state and local are corporate.  whether the government is run by a corporation, or the government IS a corporation, either way, is not corporate government the exact definition of fascism?

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2009, 02:40:30 PM »
OK fair enough, I draw your attention to section 18:

"That the legislative power of the District shall extent to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistant with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act...."

This is not subservience... This is stating consistency with, but not strict adherence to as can be seen by the inclusion of the statement "...and provisions of this act." this places the Act and it's provisions on equal ground with the Constitution. That being the case, think of what meaning may be squeezed out of the 12 page text of this Act or invented from it... since it has been given equal power with the Constitution by this 5 word statement.

"but all acts of the legislative assembly shall at all times be subject to repeal or modification by the Congress of the United States, and nothing herein shall be construed to deprive Congress of the power of legislation over said District in as ample manner as if this law had not been enacted."

This is a very sneaky way of giving power to congress over a corporate federal system... that by your previous quote has been given, without the peoples consent, extra-Constitutional power as provided by the 12 page Act over not only DC, but the ever growing federal districts throughout the nation that have been created by this act, including the federal courts and the so-called federal lands.

And section 31 explicitly discusses required oaths to uphold the constitution and under what conditions they must be met.


The oath here is only to support the Constitution, not to protect or defend it... A spider supports its pray, by wrapping it in (a litany of statutory)wraps of web while it sucks the life out of it. If the spider was sworn to protect and defend it's pray as well... I think you get the picture. Here is the oath with all of the obfuscational and superfluous language toward the end, to take your mind off of what is missing from the first line of the oath... This is typical of post 14th amendment oaths.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and will faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; and that I have not knowingly or intentionally paid or contributed anything, or made any promise in the nature of a bribe, to directly or indirectly influence any vote at the election at which I was chosen to fulfill the said office, and have not accepted, nor will I accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other valuable thing for any vote or influence that I may give or withhold on any bill, resolution, or appropriation, or any other official act."

Nice web-weaving, eh?


And section 25 states that the judiciary in DC cannot be restructured or changed without an explicit act of congress.

Yes, congress, or congress at the behest of the president, may alter the courts of the District in ways consistent with the Act... which was given equal power to the Constitution by your first quote above... this gave birth to the litany of federal courts which have grown up outside the Constitutional system, where federal statutes and the Code of Federal Regulations, (CFR) hold sway over the Constitution. Ask Erwin Schiff who tried to citing the Constitution as the basis for his defense in his tax evasion trial in a Nevada federal court. Schiff was told by the judge that the Constitution would not be cited or referenced in his court.

Those are just examples I picked out of the subservience to the pre-existing federal government. There's more in there. The way I understand it from reading this document the municipal corporation of DC has just enough power to wipe it's butt and not an ounce more. It certainly doesn't provide any legal grounds for overturning the constitution.

You have been beguiled by the smooth banality of the language, by the way it is constructed, and have failed to see exactly what the language is saying. By the second page it has invested the constitutional federal government with a litany of extra constitutional powers. The object from the onset was not to overturn the Constitution, instead, like a spider that disables it's pray with venom, then intertwines it in a wrapping of web, and then slowly sucks the life out of it until it is dead. This is the essence of this creeping federalization which has seeped into every state government and local governments as well. The object is to subvert and then supplant the Constitution, which has pretty much been done if you haven't noticed.

The organization and administration is normal and fairly obvious for something like this. You all do know that many (if not most) municipalities are also corporations? That's why you see the incorporated on the sign going into town, so the corporate status in this case is only as sinister as it is in any other case.

So what's the story about the by whom?      


Your analogy that Washington DC is some how like the municipal corporations and home rule style metropolitan city systems, is a misreading ... since the state government, nor the Federal Government are in control of these corporate cities in the direct way that the federal government is the shadow power behind a corporate United States government, that emanates from the District of Columbia, and thus is much more sinister than any incorporated city or town.

I think I have adequately described the structure, the way it is administered, and by whom... and it'll always be by the most successful group of crooks... The point is the Constitution has been reduced to almost an exoskeleton as we speak, with little life left because of this horrendous 140 year old Act.  And people for the most part are totally unaware of it. When they do catch wind of it, the almost boring banality of its language completely obfuscates the malignancy of its structure and intent.

JTCoyoté

"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks...They are, not government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers..." ~Sen. Louis T. McFadden, 1931 (for 22 years Chaired the U.S. Banking & Currency Commission)

Offline VALiberaltarian

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #46 on: February 27, 2009, 07:06:07 PM »
Thanks for the response, but I still don't see it. In order to reach the conclusion that you have one would have to assume your conclusion was the sole intent of the legislation and seriously twist the meaning of the language to get there. Some of it has to be twisted into the exact opposite meaning of what it actually says.

For example your interpretation of  "and the provisions of this act....". It's very clear to me that this limits the legislative power to not only be applicable only to citizens of the district, but that all legislation must be subservient and compatiable with the US constitution and further can ONLY legislate on those issues as provisioned by this particular document. What the sentence literally says is incredibly restrictive. To get where you're going with this you have to understand it to mean the exact opposite of what it says.

In my experience legal writing is sometimes difficult to understand because it is so literal, its designed to be that way. From reading this document I think that G. Edward Griffin is spot on in dismissing this line of inquiry as irrelevant.

Even though I don't agree thanks again for the discussion, your posts are always thoughtful and well written.     

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2009, 04:30:35 PM »
Thanks for the response, but I still don't see it. In order to reach the conclusion that you have one would have to assume your conclusion was the sole intent of the legislation and seriously twist the meaning of the language to get there. Some of it has to be twisted into the exact opposite meaning of what it actually says.

For example your interpretation of  "and the provisions of this act....". It's very clear to me that this limits the legislative power to not only be applicable only to citizens of the district, but that all legislation must be subservient and compatiable with the US constitution and further can ONLY legislate on those issues as provisioned by this particular document. What the sentence literally says is incredibly restrictive. To get where you're going with this you have to understand it to mean the exact opposite of what it says.

In my experience legal writing is sometimes difficult to understand because it is so literal, its designed to be that way. From reading this document I think that G. Edward Griffin is spot on in dismissing this line of inquiry as irrelevant.

Even though I don't agree thanks again for the discussion, your posts are always thoughtful and well written.      

Thanks you... yet be it as it may, you remain unconvinced, so I must persist.

I respect greatly the research and writings of G. Edward Griffin, but his dismissal of this pivotal piece of federal legislation seems to me a bit shallow, and requiring more investigation than he has given it. I believe it should be viewed in retrospect from the standpoint of having one foot firmly placed on trying to understand the reason for it's creation in the first place, how it could possibly be construed when looking at the original act, and then factor in the historical climate that led up to it.  While at the same time, having the other foot planted on what it has become over the last 140 years.

With this perspective it is possible to reasonably ascertain a motive for it, even in the face of it's banal legalese, so that we may better understand it's consequences whether intended or not. With that said, I must digress 100 years, back to the time of The Rebellion for Independence in order to provide a motive, and the most probable place to fit the DC organic act of 1871 within the grand globalist puzzle.  

It must be understood that the vast resources and wealth available within the boundaries of this country at the time of The War and Independence were largely unknown, unexplored, yet understood to be huge, virtually incalculable. The officers of power and enterprise in Britain and Europe knew this all too well in the 18th century, as did the considerable intellects in their employ. During that time, the powers were engaged in Imperial dealings not only in America, but in India, Africa, and Asia as well. You must understand the view from their position in the face of finite troops spread world wide to enforce their power.  Quite out of the view of the average American, or even a wealthy American of that time. And for us today, what was going on within the British Empire of the 1770s is even further removed.

So, what exactly is an 18th century tyrant to do when he is spread so thin... You tax! This is the quickest way to raise revenue, for enlistment bonuses as inducement for young men to seek military service and to purchase material with which to equip them.  But the tricky part is who and how best to enforce your new tax? It mustn't be those close to you, those who reside within your island fortress.  They may rise up and dethrone you. No the folks close to home must be placated and be living the good life. By the same token, you cannot tax those that you don't already completely subjugate, the ones you are trying to win in Africa, and India, and Asia, that would be counterproductive if not impossible. That leaves only one place, those loyal British subjects in the Americas. And that is precisely what King George did.

Now you have to understand that with the intellectual resources King George had at his disposal, he knew the possibilities beforehand, and was thus prepared to deal with a rebellion. But by the seventh year of the war, when the French fleet joined the fray in earnest, he knew that the war of attrition, without a decisive victory would soon deplete the Royal treasury, so a revision in plan was in order.  They dusted off and updated the old plans of siege, and from that point, the ongoing war for America would be one of long term subterfuge, small skirmishes, infiltration, and finally, subjugation even if it took 200 years. This plan had been in the works within the think tanks of King George's Court and was already in process, long before the ink of Cornwallis' signature to the Yorktown articles of surrender was dry, the globalist subterfuge-siege against America was already underway.

I have some errands to run... I'll get back to continue this in a bit...

--Oldyoti

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of
freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment
of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

~James Madison

Offline VALiberaltarian

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2009, 05:50:04 PM »
Every historical reference you just mentioned might be true, and I may tend to agree with your interpretation of a lot of it however that doesn't mean that the document that you posted even comes close to forming a legal basis for replacing the US constitutional government with a corporation.  It just doesn't say that, to be so it would have to explicitly state that and it doesn't.

When I say legalistic writing is extremely literal, I mean it. The danger is in over-interpretation which is what is going on here. Back to the sentence that you claim puts the DC charter on equal footing with the constitution, here is the original quote:

"That the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistant with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act...."

Here is your interpretation:

"This is not subservience... This is stating consistency with, but not strict adherence to as can be seen by the inclusion of the statement "...and provisions of this act." this places the Act and it's provisions on equal ground with the Constitution. "

Remember legal writing is maddeningly literal, so here's what it would have to say to support your interpretation:

"That the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistant with the Constitution of the United States OR the provisions of this act...."

A change in that single word would literally be the difference in the two meanings of the statement. "OR" would put it on equal and competing footing with the federal government. Fortunately it says "AND" and this single word reduces the legislative power of the DC municipal corporation down to just enough to admin the district's internal business.

I've listed several examples from the act that indicate that it does not turn the US into a corporation, can anyone quote specific language from the act that say's that it does?     

 

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2009, 09:06:01 PM »
Every historical reference you just mentioned might be true, and I may tend to agree with your interpretation of a lot of it however that doesn't mean that the document that you posted even comes close to forming a legal basis for replacing the US constitutional government with a corporation.  It just doesn't say that, to be so it would have to explicitly state that and it doesn't.

When I say legalistic writing is extremely literal, I mean it. The danger is in over-interpretation which is what is going on here. Back to the sentence that you claim puts the DC charter on equal footing with the constitution, here is the original quote:

"That the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act...."

Here is your interpretation:

"This is not subservience... This is stating consistency with, but not strict adherence to as can be seen by the inclusion of the statement "...and provisions of this act." this places the Act and it's provisions on equal ground with the Constitution. "

Remember legal writing is maddeningly literal, so here's what it would have to say to support your interpretation:

"That the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the Constitution of the United States OR the provisions of this act...."

A change in that single word would literally be the difference in the two meanings of the statement. "OR" would put it on equal and competing footing with the federal government. Fortunately it says "AND" and this single word reduces the legislative power of the DC municipal corporation down to just enough to admin the district's internal business.

I've listed several examples from the act that indicate that it does not turn the US into a corporation, can anyone quote specific language from the act that say's that it does?    

 

Nowhere have I said that the DC organic act replaces the Constitution. On the contrary, I have shown how the Act creates a private Corporation that uses the Constitution in a way that superimposes it's provisions in equal part giving legitimacy to the corporate structure. The federal government, has no power, in any case consistent with the Constitution, to CREATE, to preside by appointment, and then have "oversight and control" over, an extra-constitutional corporate power. A system that is separate from the Ratified Law as it pertains to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Constitutional government as created by that Constitution.

A corporate entity, in and of itself, is not unconstitutional, but by the direct involvement of the federal government in it's creation and administration... it can exercise backdoor FEDERAL POWER, using tentacles that reach into the states, cities, and county government's as well as regulating individual lives, all outside the Constitution framework. And we sit back as a myriad of federal agencies eat out our substance like a cancer devouring the Constitution. This, for me is sufficient to raise suspicion about this document and its original intent.

I appreciate your concern over the possibility that I may not understand legalese... however during five years in the state House, I spent as many as 16 hours a day deciphering "literal," and tentacled, mandate legislation, pending in the House and the Senate here in Colorado from the inside out... with festering unconstitutional mandates coming down from the federal government's corporate agency think tanks. Maddeningly literal, yes... and insanely convoluted in most all cases.

Suffice it to say that I know the difference between "and & or"... as well as the multiple constructions and usage of each. I even know what the meaning and usage of the word is, is...... ;D In any case, there is more than the and/or-ness of that line in the document, after all, it is almost 12 pages. So, in addition to "literal," one must add "convolution" to the lexicon of bill proofing as well, the process of using literal language to convolve or twist phrases, to redefine terms or words for the purposes of the particular document.

Certain things will jump out at you when you first read a bill, as that particular line did for you when you first read the pages I posted. The line on page 419 of the Congressional Record that year, the one you posted is what I commented on, primarily because you posted it.  In my subsequent post I pointed out that by placing the Act's provisions on an equal footing with the Constitution in that line -- though it did not lessen the power the Constitution, it does empower the provisions of the Act in conjunction with the Constitution.  ALL, in a document that reasserts the Constitution to empower Congress, as well as the president, over a private corporate system that in and of itself, is not unconstitutional, yet IS questionable procedure in the fact that the federal government is empowered to oversee and control it. This fact, in any normal reality would automatically snap in a person's mind, that this corporation is controlled by the federal government, extra-constitutionally... and in fact IS! ... (there is that little word "is" again)...

Here's my point in a nutshell... the federal government has certain specific powers that are enumerated in the Constitution, the organic Constitution... it may hire agencies, but it has no power to create, consolidate, and control those agencies as a shadow government, in the form of a municipal corporation, that exercises federal power throughout the states. They just wind it up and let it run, signing up unwitting people willy-nilly, onto this corporate "fed-gov", folks who do not realize that their signature removes their Constitutionally protected rights so that they have no Constitutional remedy when they need it! After almost a century and a half, that's a lot of people.

Likewise is the case of the Federal Reserve, and I'm sure you can think of others. Federally created and federal appointment controlled, private corporations, all. The corporate federal system is running parallel, yet outside the Constitutional framework, and has been growing by agency mitosis for the last 140 years and it all began with this Act. The affect, is to render the Constitution almost superfluous, if it was not for the fact that the federal parasite requires the Constitution for it's legal nutriment.

I will continue my historical thoughts on the run-up to the great globalist takeover, the major battles of the continuing American War for Independence, in my previous post, as I find time. I'll be discussing the Amendment process...and its many misuses and abuses next.

JTCoyoté

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government
 are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are
numerous and indefinite."
~James Madison
The Federalist Papers, No.45


''...on every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one
in which it was passed.''
~Thomas Jefferson

Offline VALiberaltarian

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #50 on: March 01, 2009, 12:14:29 AM »
OK now I can follow the reasoning in your last post. That all seems correct and I agree with most of it, however none of that specifically threatens the constitution as the supreme law of the land or invalidates the integrity of the federal government. What it does do is specify that DC has no notion of states rights, not because the act grants the municipal corporation too much power but because it grants it too little. This all is well known to residents of DC who have been complaining about this for years. 

Glad you didn't take offense over "or"/"and", I just wanted to illustrate that the difference in wording really did have an enormous effect on our understanding of this issue. I thought of famous "IS" contoversy when I wrote it too, I guess great minds think alike.... ;)

OK here's where we still differ, you state that:

"....in the form of a municipal corporation, that exercises federal power throughout the states."

How does the DC municipal corporation exercise federal power throughout the states? No municipal corporation excercises any power(well not executive, legislative or judicial maybe economic) outside of it's boundaries. So how does the corporate status of DC extend to dominate all US citizens regardless of where they live? There is no mechanism for supporting that in the act, and that is the original proposition that is in dispute.

You're right about the federal reserve, that's a big government created corporation that does exert influence. No one here would dispute that. Another subject that's ripe for related conversation is "quasi governmental organizations" and their influence. So in general I agree with your viewpoint on the government backed shadow corporate power, especially this comment:

"The corporate federal system is running parallel, yet outside the Constitutional framework, and has been growing by agency mitosis for the last 140 years and it all began with this Act. the affect, is to render the Constitution almost superfluous."

but don't see how the organic act has any effect on anything apart from running DC.

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #51 on: March 03, 2009, 01:46:01 PM »
OK now I can follow the reasoning in your last post. That all seems correct and I agree with most of it, however none of that specifically threatens the constitution as the supreme law of the land or invalidates the integrity of the federal government. What it does do is specify that DC has no notion of states rights, not because the act grants the municipal corporation too much power but because it grants it too little. This all is well known to residents of DC who have been complaining about this for years.  

Glad you didn't take offense over "or"/"and", I just wanted to illustrate that the difference in wording really did have an enormous effect on our understanding of this issue. I thought of famous "IS" contoversy when I wrote it too, I guess great minds think alike.... ;)

OK here's where we still differ, you state that:

"....in the form of a municipal corporation, that exercises federal power throughout the states."

How does the DC municipal corporation exercise federal power throughout the states?
No municipal corporation exercises any power(well not executive, legislative or judicial maybe economic) outside of it's boundaries. So how does the corporate status of DC extend to dominate all US citizens regardless of where they live? There is no mechanism for supporting that in the act, and that is the original proposition that is in dispute.

You're right about the federal reserve, that's a big government created corporation that does exert influence. No one here would dispute that. Another subject that's ripe for related conversation is "quasi governmental organizations" and their influence. So in general I agree with your viewpoint on the government backed shadow corporate power, especially this comment:

"The corporate federal system is running parallel, yet outside the Constitutional framework, and has been growing by agency mitosis for the last 140 years and it all began with this Act. the affect, is to render the Constitution almost superfluous."

but don't see how the organic act has any effect on anything apart from running DC.

The DC "municipal" corporation, is not bound directly to the provisions restricting the Federal government set up by the Constitution. It's governing law is set up by the 1871 DC Organic Act itself on equal footing with the Constitution, a separate entity actually with some congressional oversight.

Any Constitutional control for the DC corporation has been augmented and/or nullified in this marriage to the Act, which actually restricts, or transfers congressional control to agencies the Act itself creates. Using the provisions of the act as a "giant loophole," the corporation can extend it's reach, outside Constitutional bounds as can be seen in "federal lands" acquisition and control nation wide... the whole idea of "regional governments" and managing federal agencies are direct creations from these loopholes.

As I have said before, there is nothing within the Act that is unconstitutional, and looking along those lines, and trying to invent against it in that vein, will get one into trouble from the get go.  The fact that congress created this corporation, and to a degree oversees it is what is irregular... and as we have seen over the last century and a half, it has gradually worked to decrease congressional power while increasing the power of the executive.

Without historical context, and what amounts to a rock simple understanding of the Constitution, it goes right around and over most folks' understanding. It set a historical precedent in the way that it works. It opened huge loopholes, which allowed for the creation of everything from the USDA Forest Service and Federal Reserve, to the National Security Agency. It created the first extra-constitutional Federal district of control, and there will be nine more,  "...so that we can bring government closer to the people." Wrong kind of government to be sure.

This act has more to do with setting precedents with broad loopholes than it does with any unconstitutional shenanigans within the actual structure of the Act.  And in retrospect, it has served their purpose quite well since most folks still cannot see its significance.  With all of the private corporate structured systems that this precedent has allowed which are servicing the federal government, even to the extent that the President is seen as the CEO, and the cabinet has grown to what amounts to a board of directors, operating under the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Constitution is seen as stated by George Bush as, "...just a godam*ed piece of paper"... and as Obama described it, "... a deeply flawed document..." Well, these two corporate CEO PR men would naturally find fault and be at odds with it, to the point of a desire to dispose of it in favor of a corporate state structure... and there in-lies the tale.

JTCoyoté

"My agency in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act
[of 1863] was the greatest financial mistake in my life. It has built
up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country."

~Solomon P. Chase
On his role in the creation of the usury banking system

Offline VALiberaltarian

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #52 on: March 04, 2009, 08:32:04 PM »
JT, We be on same page now!

Offline adissenter2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,044
  • Revolt Time
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #53 on: March 09, 2010, 04:39:16 PM »
Quote
When you realize we haven't had "THE REAL Constitution of the United States of America" as our law for almost 140 years... AND you FINALLY understand that the system that is operating every aspect of what now is considered "our" federal government is actually a foreign power, with the corporate name United States Inc... incorporated on February 21, 1871 in the City of Washington, District of Columbia... that operates outside of our true law... then you will see how much of a fools errand you are truly on, by going after the REAL Constitution instead of the imposter... Which your effort could never touch! since they are outside our law.

agreed

I want remedy!  I want out of this Revived Roman Empire!
"Come out of her My people!"

going beyond just exposing the 'US inc'

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?board=394.0
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! Molon Labe! Come and take them!

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,518
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #54 on: November 28, 2013, 09:47:24 PM »
As Per the subject matter of tonight's (11-28-13) Infowars Nightly News interview with Jordan Maxwell on the Secrets of Legalese, this thread needs to be read and understood by all Constitutional Americans.

Oldyoti

"An excellent man, like precious metal, is
in every way invariable; A villain, like the
beams of a balance, is always varying,
upwards and downwards."

~John Locke

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,518
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Treason in Government! Admiralty on Land!! Where's the Water?
« Reply #55 on: May 15, 2014, 05:43:56 AM »
Treason in Government! Admiralty on Land!! Where's the Water?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is a letter that sums up what is wrong with the our union of Sovereign states (but like always, do some research to find out if this is true, then you have the knowledge and the understanding).

   (((( Please review the data concerning the subversion of our nation at web sites
    "THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM OF MIXED COMMON AND ROMAN LAW HAS BEEN USED TO ENSLAVE US(A)" - http://www.detaxcanada.org/cmlaw1.htm
    and "Admiralty Courts in Colorado?" - http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/admir.html

    Inform all of the members of the veterans organizations in your town and concerned citizens everywhere to the exact extent that we have been misinformed.))))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Treason and Tyranny by the bankers, the lawyers and judiciary, the bought politicians, and other vested interests is not what we or our ancestors fought and died for.

    It is time for all men who took the oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to be fully informed and take the actions necessary to uphold their oath. This is no time for us to rest on the laurels of our past. The best action we can take is to inform all the people so they can make fully informed decisions at the ballot box.

    Thank you for your attention and assistance in passing this data along to We the People!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Letter below is restored from a page that disappeared from the WEB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   AMERICAN PEOPLE, YOU have the ability to understand the information in this letter. YOU have the ability to understand the present law and past law, the Constitution. That's right!...I'm saying the Constitution is past tense, as a restrictive document on Congress. I do not make this statement lightly and I can prove it.

    The Constitution was a commercial compact between states, giving the federal government limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our fore-fathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution. To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added. I will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, where he quotes the 10th Amendment...

        "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

    The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution, common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose. The first issue I want to cover is the United States flag. Obviously from known history our flag did not have a yellow fringe bordering three sides. The United States did not start putting flags with a yellow fringe on them in government buildings and public buildings until 1959. Of course the question you would ask yourself; why did it change and are there any legal meanings behind this? Oh yes!

    First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..

        "The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." (Note - of course when new states are admitted new stars are added.)

    A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says:

        "Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy." - 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.

    The president as military commander can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During a time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.

        "Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces."

    From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:

       "Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides...........use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power."

    The reason I started with the Flag issue is because it is so easy to grasp. The main problem I have with the yellow fringe is that by its use our Constitutional Republic is no more. Our system of law was changed without the public's knowledge. It was kept secret. This is fraud. The American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration. Because the law changed from Common Law (God's Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) your status also changed from sovereign to subject. From being able to own property (allodial title) to not owning property (tenet on the land). If you think you own your property, stop paying taxes, it will be taken under the prize law.

        "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." - Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts payable in Gold" written in 1933.

    By our allowing to let these military flags fly, the American people have admitted our defeat and loss of status. Read on, you'll see what I mean. Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law, being governed by the Law of the Flag is Admiralty law. I will cover this in a minute, the following is a definition of the legal term Law of the Flag.

        "...The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it, there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law." - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

    Don't be thrown by the fact they are talking about the sea, and that it doesn't apply to land, I will prove to you that Admiralty law has come on land. Next a court case:

        "Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." - Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

    When you walk into a court and see this flag you are put on notice that you are in a Admiralty Court and that the king is in control. Also, if there is a king the people are no longer sovereign. You're probably saying this is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. YOU have read the proof, it will stand up in court. But wait, there is more, you probably would say, how could this happen? Here's how. Admiralty law is for the sea, maritime law govern's contracts between parties that trade over the sea. Well, that's what our fore-fathers intended. However, in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:

        "The committee also alluded to "the great force" of "the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution...." - Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

    It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.

        "This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note - remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land." -- Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

    And all the way back, before the U.S. Constitution John Adams talking about his state's Constitution, said:

        "Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty." -- Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

    This began the most dangerous precedent of all the Insular Cases. This is where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the states, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from the Harvard law review of AMERICAN INS. CO. v. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511, 546 (1828), relative to our insular possessions:

        "These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States." -- Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

    Here are some Court cases that make it even clearer:

       "...[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution..." "In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. ...And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable." -- Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        "The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise."

        "I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism."

        "It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution."
-- Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

    These actions allowed Admiralty law to come on land. If you will remember the definition of the Law of the Flag. When you receive benefits or enter into contracts with the king you come under his law which is Admiralty law. And what is a result of your connection with the king? A loss of your Sovereign status. Our ignorance of the law is no excuse. I'll give you an example, something you deal with everyday. Let's say you get a seat belt ticket. What law did you violate? Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law. Was it common law? Who was the injured party? No one. So it could not have been common law even though here, the State of N. C. has made chapter 20 of the Motor Vehicle code carry common law penalties, jail time. This was the only thing they could do to cover up the jurisdiction they were operating in. Was it Equity law? No, there is no contract in dispute, driving is a privilege granted by the king. If it were a contract the UCC would apply, and it doesn't. In a contract both parties have equal rights. In a privilege, you do as you are told or the privilege is revoked. Well guess what, there is only one form of law left, admiralty. Ask yourself when did licenses begin to be required? 1933.

    All district courts are admiralty courts, see the Judiciary Act of 1789.

        "It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine "all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise." -- Waring ET AL,. v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L. ed. 1847

    When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you are in. American's aren't aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the constitution does not apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up. If the judge is pressed, his name for this hidden law is statuary law. Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept? They don't exist. If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing it's procedures and court rules. They do not exist!!!

    The way you know this is Admiralty, is from the yellow fringed flag and from the actions of the law, compelled performance (Admiralty). The judges can still move at common law (murder etc.) and equity (contract disputes etc.). It's up to the type of case brought before the court. If the case is Admiralty, the only way back to the common law is the saving to suitor clause and action under Admiralty. The court and rules of all three jurisdictions have been blended. Under Admiralty you are compelled to perform under the agreement you made by asking and receiving the king's government (license). You receive the benefit of driving on federal roads (military roads), so you have voluntarily obligated yourself to this system of law, this is why you are compelled to obey. If you don't it will cost you money or jail time or both. The type of offence determines the jurisdiction you come under, but the court itself is an Admiralty court, defined by the flag. Driving without a seat belt under Chapter 20 DMV code carries a criminal penalty for a non common law offense. Again where is the injured party or parties, this is Admiralty law. Here is a quote to prove what I said about the roads being military, this is only one benefit, there are many:

        "Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear that under the war-making power Congress may appropriate money toward the construction of a military road when this is absolutely necessary for the defense of any State or Territory of the Union against foreign invasion. Under the Constitution Congress has power "to declare war," "to raise and support armies," "to provide and maintain a navy," and to call forth the militia to "repel invasions." Thus endowed, in an ample manner, with the war-making power, the corresponding duty is required that "the United States shall protect each of them [the States] against invasion." Now, how is it possible to afford this protection to California and our Pacific possessions except by means of a military road through the Territories of the United States, over which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported from the Atlantic States to meet and to repel the invader?.... Besides, the Government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of constructing military roads." -- Inaugural Address of James Buchanan, March 4, 1857,..Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902.

    I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster's Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen, which I won't go into in this paper or the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case where common law was over turned. Read the following definition to learn what it means to have a SS# and pay a contribution:

        "Contribution. Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Under principle of "contribution," a tort-feasor against whom a judgement is rendered is entitled to recover proportional shares of judgement from other joint tort-feasor whose negligence contributed to the injury and who were also liable to the plaintiff. (Note - tort feasor means wrong doer, what did you do to be defined as a wrong doer???) The share of a loss payable by an insure when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss. The insurer's share of a loss under a coinsurance or similar provision. The sharing of a loss or payment among several. The act of any one or several of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties, etc., in reimbursing one of their number who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share." -- (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.)

    Guess what? It gets worse. What does this date 1933 mean? Well you better sit down. First, remember World War I, in 1917 President Wilson declared the War Powers Act of October 6, 1917, basically stating that he was stopping all trade with the enemy except for those he granted a license, excluding Americans. Read the following from this Trading with the enemy Act, where he defines enemy: In the War Powers Act of 1917, Chapter 106, Section 2 (c) it says that these declared war powers did not affect citizens of the United States:

        "Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States of the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term "enemy."

    Now, this leads us up to 1933. Our country was recovering from a depression and now was declared bankrupt. I know you are saying. Do What, the American people were never told about this? Public policy and National Security overruled the public right to know. Read the following Congressional quote:

        "My investigation convinced me that during the last quarter of a century the average production of gold has been falling off considerably. The gold mines of the world are practically exhausted. There is only about $11,000,000,000 in gold in the world, with the United States owning a little more than four billions. We have more than $100,000,000,000 in debts payable in gold of the present weight and fineness. . . As a practical proposition these contracts cannot be collected in gold for the obvious reason that the gold supply of the entire world is not sufficient to make payment." -- Congressional Record, Congressman Dies, March 15, 1933

    Before 1933 all contracts with the government were payable in gold. Now I ask you? Who in their right mind would enter into contracts totaling One Hundred billion dollars in gold, when there was only eleven billion in gold in the whole world, and we had about four billion. To keep from being hung by the American public they obeyed the banksters demands and turned over our country to them. They never came out and said we were in bankruptcy but, the fact remains, we are. In 1933 the gold of the whole country had to be turned in to the banksters, and all government contracts in gold were canceled. This is bankruptcy.

        "Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government." -- Congressman Traficant on the House floor, March 17, 1933

    The wealth of the nation including our land was turned over to the banksters. In return, the nations 100 billion dollar debt was forgiven. I have two papers that have circulated the country on this subject. Remember Jesus said "money is the root of all evil" The Congress of 1933 sold every American into slavery to protect their asses. Read the following Congressional quotes:

        "I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation--they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation--to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected for the Government." -- Congressional Record, Congressman Patman, March 13, 1933

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        "That is the equity of what we are about to do. Yes; you are going to close us down. Yes; you have already closed us down, and have been doing it long before this year. Our President says that for 3 years we have been on the way to bankruptcy. We have been on the way to bankruptcy longer than 3 years. We have been on the way to bankruptcy ever since we began to allow the financial mastery of this country gradually to get into the hands of a little clique that has held it right up until they would send us to the grave." -- Congressional Record, Congressman Long, March 11, 1933

    What did Roosevelt do? Sealed our fate and our childrens fate, but worst of all, he declared War on the American People. Remember the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act? He declared emergency powers with his authority being the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act. The problem is he redefined who the enemy was, read the following: (remember what I said about the SS# being a license to work)

    The declared National Emergency of March 9, 1933 amended the War Powers Act to include the American People as enemies:

        "In Title 1, Section 1 it says: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."

        "Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, BY ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."


    Here is the legal phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but at law this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:

        "As these words are used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, providing for the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would appear to have been to exclude by the fewest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common Law), the two classes of cases, children born of *ALIEN ENEMIES(emphasis mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of which, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country." - United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 682, 42 L Ed 890, 902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine's Law Dictionary

    Congressman Beck had this to say about the War Powers Act:

        "I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency there is no Constitution. This means its death....But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its constitutional powers." - Congressman James Beck in Congressional Record 1933

    The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this so guess which one stayed in, the Emergency Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933.

        "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

        "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 (now 63) years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."
- Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973

    You may be asking yourself is this the law, and if so where is it, read the following: In Title 12 U.S.C, in section 95b you'll find the following codification of the Emergency War Powers:

        "The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C., 95a), are hereby approved and confirmed." - (March 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)

    So you can further understand the word Alien Enemy and what it means to be declared an enemy of this government, read the following definitions: The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as:

        One who owes allegiance to the adverse belligerent. - 1 Kent 73.

        He who owes a temporary but not a permanent allegiance is an alien enemy in respect to acts done during such temporary allegiance only; and when his allegiance terminates, his hostile character terminates also; -1 B. & P.163.

        Alien enemies are said to have no rights, no privileges, unless by the king's special favor, during time of war; - 1 Bla. Com. 372; Bynkershoek 195; 8 Term 166. [Remember we've been under a declared state of war since October 6, 1917, as amended March 9, 1933 to include every United States citizen.]

        "The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as: Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United States was sufficient to characterize him as "alien enemy" within Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained American citizenship." - Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265, 142 N.J. Eq. 226.

        "Residence or doing business in a hostile territory is the test of an "alien enemy: within meaning of Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Orders thereunder." - Executive Order March 11, 1942, No. 9095, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 6; Trading with the Enemy Act 5 (b). In re Oneida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Utica, 53 N.Y.S. 2d. 416, 420, 421, 183 Misc. 374.

        "By the modern phrase, a man who resides under the allegiance and protection of a hostile state for commercial purposes is to be considered to all civil purposes as much an `alien enemy' as if he were born there." - Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119, 122.

    Am I done with the proof? Not quite, believe it or not, it gets worse. I have established that war has been declared against the American people and their children. The American people that voted for the 1933 government were responsible for Congress' actions, because Congress was there in their proxy. What is one of the actions taken against an enemy during time of War. In the Constitution the Congress was granted the power during the time of war to grant Letters of Marque. What is a letter of Marque? Well, read the following:

        A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the crew. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914.

    Think about the mission of the IRS, they are a private organization, or their backup, the ATF. These groups have been granted letters of Marque, read the following:

        "The trading with the enemy Act, originally and as amended, in strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress "to declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." -- Stoehr v. Wallace 255 U.S.

    Under the Constitution the Power of the Government had its checks and balances, power was divided between the three branches of government. To do anything else means you no longer have a Constitutional government. I'm not even talking about the obvious which we have already covered, read the following:

        "The Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Attorney General may require, by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, or otherwise, any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, from time to time and at any time or times, complete information relative to, any transaction referred to in section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917." -- Title 12 Banks and Banking page 570.

    How about Clinton's new Executive Order of June 6, 1994 where the Alphabet agencies are granted their own power to obtain money and the military if need be to protect themselves. These are un-elected officials, sounds un-Constitutional to me, but read on.

        "The delegations of authority in this Order shall not affect the authority of any agency or official pursuant to any other delegation of presidential authority, presently in effect or hereafter made, under section 5 (b) of the act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a)"

    How can the President delegate to un-elected officials power that he was elected to have, and declare that it cannot be taken away, by the voters or the courts or Congress. I tell you how, under martial law, under the War Powers Act. The American public is asleep and is unaware nor do they care about what is going on, because it may interfere with their making money. I guess Thomas Jefferson was right again:

        "...And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanager's to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers..." -- (Thomas Jefferson) THE MAKING OF AMERICA, p. 395

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Submitted January 28

       "Lloyd Bentsen, of Texas, to be U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the African Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Asian Development Bank; U.S. Governor of African Development Fund; and U.S. Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development."
-- Presidential Documents, February 1, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, Bentsen was the Secretary of Treasury. Gee, I don't know, this sounds like a conflict of entrust and interest to me, how about you? Also, Congress is the only one under the Constitution able to appropriate money.

    How about a few months ago when Secretary of Treasury Ruban sent tons of money to Mexico, without Congress' approval. Also, Secretary of Treasury Ruban was president of the bank that made the loans to Mexico, he was then made Secretary of Treasury and paid Mexico's debt to his bank with taxpayers money. Again, sounds like a conflict of entrust to me.

        "Without limitation as to any other powers or authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General under any other provision of this Order, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and empowered to prescribe from time to time regulations, rulings, and instructions to carry out the purposes of this Order and to provide therein or otherwise the conditions under which licenses may be granted by or through such officers or agencies as the Secretary of the Treasury may designate, and the decision of the Secretary with respect to the granting, denial or other disposition of an application or license shall be final." -- Section 7, Title 12 U.S.C. Banks and Banking

    Do the issues I have brought up sound like this is a Constitutional government to you? I have not covered the main nexus, the money. I didn't make this information up, it is the government's own documents and legal definitions taken from their dictionaries. I wish the hard working Americans in the government that are loyal to an American Republic could read this, the more that know the truth the better.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally placed on the web by James Montgomery, Knowledge is Freedom BBS, 910-869-1945, High Point North Carolina, August 27, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JTCoyoté

"The people are the only legitimate fountain of
power, and it is from them that the constitutional
charter, under which the several branches of
government hold their power, is derived."

~James Madison
 

Offline jerryweaver

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,430
A new American army is growing on American soil. They are prepared.
« Reply #56 on: May 15, 2014, 06:12:50 AM »
A new American army is growing on American soil. They are prepared. - See more at: http://www.patriotnetdaily.com/a-new-american-army-is-growing-on-american-soil-they-are-prepared/#sthash.VHXu4PZs.dRmfIZO8.dpuf

http://www.patriotnetdaily.com/a-new-american-army-is-growing-on-american-soil-they-are-prepared/

I had heard and read rumblings of a ground-swell movement within the American military. This quiet, passionately pro-American, pro-Constitution, pro-democracy, army is rapidly growing. It has already faced down the US empire twice. Their mission: to save Americans from their Government. They call themselves, “Oath Keepers.” “I Do Solemnly Swear (Or Affirm) That I Will Uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic…Pledging My Life, My Fortune, and My Sacred Honor. So Help Me God.” – US Military Oath of Service. Oath Keepers are the predictable historical reaction by populations to endemic political, financial, and       corporate corruption and the destruction of their society. With a puppet president, malicious congress, and constitutionally irrational court system, to more and more Americans Oath Keepers is becoming the only effective counter weight to a tyrannical empire. -
 See more at: http://www.patriotnetdaily.com/a-new-american-army-is-growing-on-american-soil-they-are-prepared/#sthash.VHXu4PZs.dRmfIZO8.dpuf


Offline pac522

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,821
  • Peace sells, but who's buying?
Re: Treason in Government! Admiralty on Land!! Where's the Water?
« Reply #57 on: May 15, 2014, 01:21:08 PM »
Quote
Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850

and they said: “The committee also alluded to ‘the great force’ of ‘the great constitutional question as to

the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption

of the Constitution....’” - H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850).” Thus, this tribunal is an

Administrative court-martial and the British Accredited Registry [BAR] Association-Attorneys have

overthrown the American people and the American form of government by extirpating the civil authority


Page 8 of 40

and removing the Judiciary in favor of their military quasi-judiciary [Something that appears to be a

proper judiciary but is not.].


Found in a law suit in Colorado.
http://calltodecision.com/cre.htm
This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".

Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.  ~EvadingGrid

The answer to 1984 is 1776.

Offline pac522

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,821
  • Peace sells, but who's buying?
Re: Treason in Government! Admiralty on Land!! Where's the Water?
« Reply #58 on: May 15, 2014, 01:27:27 PM »
http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2013/07/destruction-of-america-constitution.html

Quote
THE DEFINITION OF THE "UNITED STATES", ACCORDING TO U.S. CODE:
28 USC § 3002 - Definitions (15):
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
"A FEDERAL CORPORATION"...SINCE 1871.
THE POWER GIVEN TO THIS CORPORATION WAS GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL "'united States of America'".
THE GOVERNOR OF THIS NEW CORPORATION WAS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT ALL LAWS PASSED BY DELEGATES WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION.
DOWNLOAD THE PDF, SEE IT FOR YOURSELVES.
http://www.dcvote.org/trellis/struggle/territorial_legislation_1871.pdf
THIS NEW, "SECOND NATION" WAS FORMED BY CHANGING THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION BY ONE WORD AND EXCHANGING CAPITAL LETTER FOR LOWER CASE.
<<We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], 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.>>
BECAME INSTEAD
<<We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution  OF  the   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.>>
This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".

Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.  ~EvadingGrid

The answer to 1984 is 1776.

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,518
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Treason in Government! Admiralty on Land!! Where's the Water?
« Reply #59 on: May 15, 2014, 02:17:44 PM »
The righteous and true "Constitution for the united States of America" is still running in the background.

It is exactly in the form it was before the forged, unlawfully amended, and false constitution in force today, was cloned from it and amended profusely to the empowerment of the global royalist banking elite, at the expense of the People.

All that's needed to shut this down is the for We the people to understand this, and then issue a LOUD verbal prompt for a swift re-institution of The Constitution as it last was, and as it still is from the time before it's wrongful and lawless usurpation.

This would remove with one swing of the scythe of Justice, all multi-tentacled globalist statutes, regulations, edicts, and policies, returning a huge load of liberty, authority, and responsibility back into the hands of the States and the People...where it belongs.

The real Constitution is as it was in early April 1865...namely, The 1776 Declaration of Independence, The 7 Article 1787 Constitution, the 10 Article 1791 Bill of Rights, and the 3 original added Amendments, which includes the 1819 Original 13th Amendment...

JTCoyoté


The famous woodcut by
Benjamin Franklin, 1754

"Think what you do when you run into debt;
you give to another power over your liberty."

~Benjamin Franklin


Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,518
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2015, 07:04:41 PM »
Alex actually broached this subject today (2/22/15) in the second hour prompted by a caller... so it is again in place here on the show page... He asked that a writer boil it down into an article ... hmmm...

JTCoyoté

"The highest level of prosperity occurs when
there is a free-market economy and
a minimum of government regulations."

~Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #61 on: February 22, 2015, 07:15:05 PM »
I think it goes back further, see 'Money Masters' for details.

However, the DC Organic Act is a milestone in the history, and worth a little info-plug
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871

Its a personal gripe of mine that if you want a public visible enemy, then look to City States.
Grasp that Washington District of Crimminals is a City State.

Those of you that attended school should recall that it was Rome, and the Roman Empire, not the Italian Empire. Recall also the other City States, from era long past, and realise that nothing that much changes.

Your all entitled to think I am stark raving mad.


Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,518
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2015, 10:45:13 PM »
I think it goes back further, see 'Money Masters' for details.

However, the DC Organic Act is a milestone in the history, and worth a little info-plug
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871

Its a personal gripe of mine that if you want a public visible enemy, then look to City States.
Grasp that Washington District of Crimminals is a City State.

Those of you that attended school should recall that it was Rome, and the Roman Empire, not the Italian Empire. Recall also the other City States, from era long past, and realise that nothing that much changes.

Your all entitled to think I am stark raving mad.

It is a "city state" alright that has final jurisdiction encompassing the entire united states... it was accomplished more cleverly and covertly than any other city-state in history.

It's bylaws plug directly into the center of our constitutional system on equal footing and carries equal power as the Articles of the Constitution... it does not recognize the Constitution's Enabling document the Declaration of Independence, or the laws of prohibition, Bill of Rights...for obvious reasons. This is why constitution day is Sept. 17 1787... nothing came before that, and nothing came after... all the law they need can be found beginning with the first three words... "We The People"... ending with the last three words... "of the Convention."

It is the corporate state's seat of power... the people elected as DC officials are merely administrative positions for the city's "10 x 10 mile square area" The power puppets of the globalists, in federal offices run the rest of the show... this includes the top bosses the National Security Council.

JTCoyoté

"Property: Rightful dominion over external objects;
ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right
to a thing; Property is the highest right a man
can have to anything."
~Black's Law Dictionary
Second Edition, 1891

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #63 on: February 26, 2015, 12:33:06 PM »
It is a "city state" alright that has final jurisdiction encompassing the entire united states... it was accomplished more cleverly and covertly than any other city-state in history.

It's bylaws plug directly into the center of our constitutional system on equal footing and carries equal power as the Articles of the Constitution... it does not recognize the Constitution's Enabling document the Declaration of Independence, or the laws of prohibition, Bill of Rights...for obvious reasons. This is why constitution day is Sept. 17 1787... nothing came before that, and nothing came after... all the law they need can be found beginning with the first three words... "We The People"... ending with the last three words... "of the Convention."

It is the corporate state's seat of power... the people elected as DC officials are merely administrative positions for the city's "10 x 10 mile square area" The power puppets of the globalists, in federal offices run the rest of the show... this includes the top bosses the National Security Council.

JTCoyoté

"Property: Rightful dominion over external objects;
ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right
to a thing; Property is the highest right a man
can have to anything."
~Black's Law Dictionary
Second Edition, 1891


It gets even more weird with this City State stuff

The original name for that stretch of the river was The Tiber, and the original name for the land was Rome . . .. .. ..
Totally bizarre ?

Well just a snippet of info for anyone wondering why some of us are jumping up and down about it being a City State.

Those of you that obsess about "End Times", "Revelation", "The Apocalypse", "Left Behind" - the mysterious rise of a revised Roman Empire.
Perhaps you ain't been fed the right info and have been fed a massive miss direction.

Offline ThaManWithNoName

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #64 on: March 23, 2015, 12:10:23 AM »
Hey JTCoyote, You seem to know a lot about the subject and I think you should try and submit something to Alex. I have been studying this subject for the last 4 months now, with most of my curiosity being sparked by the "Freeman" or "Sovereign Citizen" movement. Even after coming to understand the difference between natural law and maritime admiralty law, it wasn't until I read this Act that I fully understood how every natural person willingly consented to being subjected to maritime admiralty law in America. I'm sure you know a lot more about it than I do but I think this pinpoints where it all started. I just think it would be a worthwhile topic seeing as how every state, county, city, town, lobby, pension, or any municipality is now a corporation unto itself and owned by THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION.
Not sure if you've seen it but this guy went through the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR's) of just a few of these corporations. It's pretty lengthy and a bit tedious at times, but it shows just how corporate all these governments truly are. Best wishes mate!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ3z8ZqEiLQ

Offline pac522

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,821
  • Peace sells, but who's buying?
Re: The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.
« Reply #65 on: March 23, 2015, 02:50:58 AM »
Hey JTCoyote, You seem to know a lot about the subject and I think you should try and submit something to Alex.

He did a while back, always good to bump :)

http://www.infowars.com/our-10th-amendment-sovereignty-resolve-will-defeat-the-new-world-order/

Link from article: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4199.0
This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".

Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.  ~EvadingGrid

The answer to 1984 is 1776.

Offline pac522

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,821
  • Peace sells, but who's buying?
This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".

Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.  ~EvadingGrid

The answer to 1984 is 1776.

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,518
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Adding this link also

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=258473.msg1473433#msg1473433

Pac... I completely forgot about these... chuckle...

I merged your link above into this thread and it begins with post #55, and I adjusted the title... Thanks, pac...

Oldyoti

"I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness,
it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood
up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now
we're fretting day and night about third-world countries that
have no army, navy or air force."
~Ron Paul


Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,518
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Hey JTCoyote, You seem to know a lot about the subject and I think you should try and submit something to Alex. I have been studying this subject for the last 4 months now, with most of my curiosity being sparked by the "Freeman" or "Sovereign Citizen" movement. Even after coming to understand the difference between natural law and maritime admiralty law, it wasn't until I read this Act that I fully understood how every natural person willingly consented to being subjected to maritime admiralty law in America. I'm sure you know a lot more about it than I do but I think this pinpoints where it all started. I just think it would be a worthwhile topic seeing as how every state, county, city, town, lobby, pension, or any municipality is now a corporation unto itself and owned by THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION.
Not sure if you've seen it but this guy went through the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR's) of just a few of these corporations. It's pretty lengthy and a bit tedious at times, but it shows just how corporate all these governments truly are. Best wishes mate!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ3z8ZqEiLQ

First off, Welcome to the Prison Planet Forum.

Like the video you linked to, this issue can be convoluted and tedious upon tedium when you finally dive in to delve and discover...

Developing a ladder structure and outline from the traced back seeds that trail into this thing from all over the industrial world, at the time of it's adoption, is a general systems nightmare...

This structure only functions because the people have accepted and allow it... it is contrary to all Laws of Just government as well as most of the laws of honest business which proceeded it's creation. You can spend months digging in one of it's hundreds of aspects, like the covert "secret society" aspect  for instance... why the aluminum pyramidal cap on the hastily changed and erected obelisk... the monument to George Washington. 

This system will only divulge itself completely,  as leakers begin it's deflation, and it ultimately disappears as the mind control illusion it is. This can only happen when the People, in mass, a majority in sustained chorus, scream out... "This DC central power is Bull-Shit!!"

Oldyoti

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there
is pains taken to bring it to light."

~George Washington -- in a letter to
Charles M. Thruston, Aug. 10, 1794

Offline pac522

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,821
  • Peace sells, but who's buying?
Pac... I completely forgot about these... chuckle...

I merged your link above into this thread and it begins with post #55, and I adjusted the title... Thanks, pac...

Oldyoti

"I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness,
it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood
up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now
we're fretting day and night about third-world countries that
have no army, navy or air force."
~Ron Paul




I didn't forget. Yes sir, anytime.
This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".

Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.  ~EvadingGrid

The answer to 1984 is 1776.