Tuesday, July 9, 2013

U.S.A. BECAME A "CORPORATION" IN 1871. NO MORE CONSTITUTION

*** UPDATED AUGUST 25, 2013...BEGINS AT THE TRIPLE ASTERISKS BELOW ***


The "Federal" Government, "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (all caps) created illegally in 1871, is a separate entity from "'the united States of America'", a SOVEREIGN NATION, which was created by our original (organic) Constitution, and the 1871-created new government should be called "the United States, Incorporated".

[SEE Acts of the Forty-first Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62, http://www.dcvote.org/trellis/struggle/territorial_legislation_1871.pdf]

"'CHAPTER LXII -

AN ACT TO PROVIDE A GOVERNMENT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.'"ESTABLISHING THAT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS A BODY CORPORATE, CAN HAVE A SEAL, CAN CONTRACT AND BE CONTRACTED WITH, AND EXERCISE ALL OTHER POWERS OF A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.


A corporation is simply an entity which makes its own rules for its own employees and for its own structural operation.

The "U.S. government", which exists ONLY on a ten acre parcel of property in Washington D.C. (District of Columbia), IS OUTSIDE the CONSTITUTIONALLY NAMED "'united States of America'", IS a CORPORATION that has taken on the role of a quasi-government, but which has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY, i.e., NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, TO DO SO, BUT IT DOES NOT OPERATE UNDER THE ORIGINAL/ORGANIC CONSTITUTION EXCEPT FOR THE ILLUSION OF THE 'SUPREME COURT'.

DO YOU THINK THIS IS HORSE-COOKIES?
DO YOU THINK THIS IS 'CONSPIRACY THEORY'?
This is something many Americans have known for over 100 years, something my father taught us as children, something we were told we could change, if enough of us WOULD.

IF YOU THINK THIS IS "BS", SIMPLY GO READ THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS, THEN SEE WHAT YOU THINK.


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.>>


IT WAS AS SIMPLE AS THAT TO TRANSFORM A NATION INTO A CORPORATION!
IT WAS ALL ACCOMPLISHED BY "LEGALESE", THE JARGON OF THE LAWYER, A 'LANGUAGE' VERY FEW AMERICANS ARE EVEN AWARE OF.

HAVE YOU NEVER NOTICED THAT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 'COMMUNICATES' WITH US, OUR NAMES ARE IN ALL-CAPS?
THERE IS A LEGAL REASON FOR THAT AND THAT REASON IS LINKED TO THE ALL-CAPS SPELLING OF THE "CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES", AS OPPOSED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL "united States of America".

HERE'S ANOTHER BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO:
This Federal government (aka, CORPORATION) sees itself as a DEMOCRACY, whereas the original states of the Union were a REPUBLIC.


The Republic is no longer recognized by the "democracy" known as "'the United States of America'".
WHY DOES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
As I've stated before many times, you should understand that "democracy" essentially is majority rule, or what some call "mob rule," and a Republic is a system of government that is focused on the right of EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL, NO MATTER THEIR STATION IN LIFE, THEIR RACE, OR THEIR BELIEFS, all laws pertaining to ALL citizens equally, with no one exempt from the ORGANIC laws laid down in the ORIGINAL Constitution.

The REPUBLIC created by the Constitution intended to protect the rights of the individuals, not so much the mob or the majority, but of the individuals that make up the whole...EACH individual, ALL individuals equally.
THE ACT OF 1871 CHANGED ALL THAT, AS DID THE NEVER-RATIFIED BY 3/4 MAJORITY 14th AMENDMENT.
[SEE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE 14th at ** far below & how this is a PROVEN fact in the 08/25/2013 update.]


The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.

3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States THEN in the Union, AS MANDATED BY LAW, and therefore was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union AT THAT TIME as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

You must understand that 28 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U. S. Senate.(THOSE FROM STATES THAT HAD SECEDED FROM THE "UNION", i.e., "Confederate States"), in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment.
This is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by 10 DISSENTING State Legislatures. It's HISTORY, read it sometimes.

WHO WAS ALLOWED TO 'RATIFY' THE 14th AMENDMENT?
ONLY STATES THAT HAD REMAINED IN THE UNION DURING THE CIVIL WAR.

IT PASSED BY WHAT IS CALLED A "RUMP" CONGRESS COMPOSED OF IRATE REPUBLICANS WHO WANTED TO GRIND THINGS INTO THE FACES OF THE CIVIL WAR "REBELS".

HOW THEY MANAGED TO DO THIS WAS 'SLICK', BUT COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL...WHICH IS ANOTHER REASON THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, CALLED THE "ORGANIC" CONSTITUTION WAS REPLACED BY THE NEW ONE THAT FORMED THE FEDERAL CORPORATION.

[NOTE: There is a discussion about this which you may find interesting, here:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/powers13th14th15th.htm


ABOUT THAT EXCLUSION OF THE SOUTHERN SENATORS FROM THE SENATE VOTE ON THE 14th AMENDMENT:Tulane Law Review vol. 28 1953, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment,

by Walter J. Suthon, Jr.
http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony32.html



"How remote was this Hamiltonian concept from the events of 1867 and 1888, when a "rump" Congress arrogated [claimed without justification] to itself the power to force ratification of a rejected amendment, coercing ratifications by several of the rejecting States." (pg. 26)
"This submission was by a two-thirds vote of the quorum present in each House of Congress, and in that sense it complied with Article V of the Constitution.

However, the submission was by a "rump" Congress.

Using the constitutional provision that "Each House shall be the judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..." each House had excluded all persons appearing with credentials as Senators or Representatives from the ten Southern States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas.
This exclusion, through the exercise of an unreviewable constitutional prerogative, constituted a gross violation of the essence of two other constitutional provisions, both intended to protect the rights of the States to representation in Congress." (pg. 28)

"Had these ten Southern States not been summarily denied their constitutional rights of representation in Congress, through the ruthless use of the power of each House to pass on the election and qualifications of its members, this amendment proposal would doubtless have died a-borning.
It obviously would have been impossible to secure a two-thirds vote for the submission of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, particularly in the Senate, if the excluded members had been permitted to enter and to vote. Of course, that was one of the motives and reasons for this policy of ruthless exclusion." (pg. 28)


ACTUALLY, WORSE THAN THAT HAPPENED A BIT FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, AGAIN SOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TURNED ON OTHER MEMBERS AND RAMMED A LOT OF THINGS DOWN 'SOUTHERN THROATS'.LET US REMEMBER THAT AFTER EVERY WAR, THE WINNER WRITES THE LAW AND DICTATES POLICY.

Most of the laws of the Federal government, "CORPORATE AMERICA", are essentially PURELY corporate rules and corporate laws CREATED TO CONTROL sovereign states and sovereign citizens as Congress sees fit.

The states who have become associated with the Federal government, who have given there allegiance or otherwise bought into the Federal government in Washington, D.C., a corporation, have entered into an ILLEGAL contract.


The government in Washington, D.C. is not set up to represent the states, but to control the states, as though they were subordinate corporations to this greater corporation.
The Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment was never presented to the President of the United States for his approval, as President Andrew Johnson stated in his message on June 22, 1866.
Johnson and a few others saw what was happening, that the banking cartel was establishing a "nation within a nation", was setting up a giant corporation in the District of Columbia, which is not a part of the nation founded by the Declaration of Independence or by the Original Constitution of that original nation.
Other presidents have also seen this, but too late...

Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy perhaps cried out the loudest, but only after they, too, had been duped.


[SEE http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html FOR AN IN-DEPTH ACCOUNTING OF THIS MESS WE FACE. One can find the points made on that website all over the internet, often on government websites. The information is valid.]

LET US THINK, BEFORE THAT BECOMES ILLEGAL!
LET US SEE PAST THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS, PULL BACK THE DUSTY CURTAIN AND SEE WHO RUNS THIS "OZ"!


EXECUTIVE ORDERS...DECREES OF THE KING
"The President is acting as a king -- issuing "decrees" called Executive Orders -- which we are to believe overrides the Constitution for the United States of America, bypassing the system of checks and balances.
Corrupt courts prosecute on false charges, ignoring the right to due process.
To what may we attribute the impending death of our once great nation and the slave status of once-free Americans?
Who is to blame for her state of bankruptcy and vulnerability?
We are, by our silence.
Our lack of involvement is our acquiescence." ~ Jackie Patru, sweetliberty.org

Because the U.S. government is situated in the District of Columbia, which is NOT part of the United States, it is essentially, according to Black's Law Dictionary, a different nation entirely.


It is a Federal Nation, which rules over the District of Colombia.
It has no real jurisdiction over the rest of the United States in a technical sense, and for this CORPORATION, located OUTSIDE the U.S.A., to pass laws, tax another country such as "'the united States of America'" is technically and legally a brazen scam, a snow-job.

The Constitution was a compact BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL STATES, giving the federal government/congress/the president/Supreme Court LIMITED powers.

The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as FURTHER LIMITATIONS on the federal government.

Our founders 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.

Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, quoting 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 ORIGINALLY created 'united States government' cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people.

WE WERE SOVEREIGN ENTITIES, ALL, NOT SUBJECTS OF A KING!


THE 3 TYPES OF LAW FEW CITIZENS KNOW EXIST...
Three forms of law were granted according to the Constitution; common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose.

COMMON LAW IS A THING OF THE PAST, ADMIRALTY LAW REIGNS AND WE HAVE FALLEN PREY TO A CORPORATION (contract law).



WE ARE UNDER THE LAW OF THE SEA, NOT THE LAND, UNDER ADMIRALTY LAW, NOT COMMON LAW AS WE SHOULD BE, COMMON LAW BEING THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THE NEW NATION THE FOUNDERS CREATED AS A REPUBLIC.

How can we know that?

ONE way is to look at the FLAG in courtrooms and other places of "government".

Let me explain..
.

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." (Of course when new states are admitted, new stars are added.)

A footnote 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.

"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."
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!

The American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration.

NO, THE FRINGED FLAG SHOWS WE ARE UNDER ADMIRALTY LAW!



The law changed from Common Law (what the Constitution calls "God's Law") to Admiralty Law (the kings law) and 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, just stop paying taxes, see how quickly it will be taken under the prize law.


ONLY MARITIME/ADMIRALTY LAW ALLOWS FOR THE TAKING OF LAND AS A "PRIZE"!
"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.

When you walk into a court and see this FRINGED flag you are, in essence, put on notice that you are in an Admiralty Court and that the KING is in control.

BUT UNDERSTAND THIS, if there is a king, the people are no longer sovereign.

THE ACT OF 1871 REWORDED THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, FORMING A 2nd ENTITY WITHIN OUR BORDERS, A CORPORATION, A CORPORATION THAT RULES BY THE "LAW OF THE SEA".


THERE IS A VIDEO OF SOME LENGTH <HERE> THAT WILL EXPLAIN ADMIRALTY LAW IN DEPTH . YOU WILL BE AMAZED BY IT.

What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a NEW constitution for "the government of the District of Columbia", an INCORPORATED government.

This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.

How many LEGAL minds were tapped to accomplish this we may never know, but it was certainly a slick piece of legal maneuvering.

YOU SEE, WHEN THIS WAS DONE, AMERICA WAS COMPLETELY PENNILESS, BANKRUPT, OWED FOREIGN NATIONS ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY.


ABRAHAM LINCOLN HAD DECLARED MARTIAL LAW DURING THE CIVIL WAR, THEN WAS ASSASSINATED, AND NO ONE THOUGHT TO UN-DECLARE THAT MARTIAL LAW!

SOMEONE WITH A LOT OF LEGAL GENIUS PICKED UP ON THIS, SAW THE WAY TO CREATE A CORPORATION TO PAY OFF THE HUGE DEBT, MADE US ALL SUBJECTS OF THE CORPORATION, AND MADE US ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL DEBT... FOREVER!
FOREVER!


AND WE ARE STILL UNDER MARTIAL LAW!

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO UNDO THAT, BUT SINCE 1933 WE HAVE ALSO BEEN UNDER A CONSTANT STATE OF "NATIONAL EMERGENCY"!

WITH NATIONAL EMERGENCY COME "EMERGENCY ACTS" WHICH SET ASIDE LAWS DURING THE "EMERGENCY", BUT OUR EMERGENCY HAS NEVER ENDED, NOT SINCE 1933!

WE HAVE HAD MARTIAL LAW SINCE APRIL 15, 1861.


WE HAVE HAD A "NATIONAL EMERGENCY" SINCE 1933 AND EACH PRESIDENT SINCE THEN HAS MADE SURE WE CONTINUE THAT 'NATIONAL EMERGENCY'. IT'S ALL ON RECORD, ALL AVAILABLE ONLINE ON THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN WEBSITES... EVERY PRESIDENT SIMPLY CARRIES OVER A "NATIONAL EMERGENCY"...WHICH LLOWS HIM TO CALL FOR MARTIAL LAW.

In fact, there are now in effect EVEN MORE presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971...IT'S A NEVER-ENDING STORY!

EACH PRESIDENT HAS EASILY FOUND A REASON TO DECLARE EMERGENCY!


Obama extends post-9/11 state of national emergency for 16th year

BUT...WE HAVE BEEN UNDER THE LAW OF THE SEA, ADMIRALTY LAW, MILITARY LAW, SINCE THE 28th CONGRESS IN 1845.

In 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land.

The bill may be traced in Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2d. Session 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 MORE! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended!" But no, the courts began a long train of abuses.

THOSE ABUSES, AS ANYONE CAN SEE, CONTINUE TODAY!

Most Americans think the judicial system is there to protect their rights according to the Constitution, the law of the land, the Bill of Rights and so forth, but they are really there to keep a false sense of order in society, to keep people from learning the truth and panicking or rioting to restore Common Law and the ORIGINAL Constitution, and they are also there to protect those who have the REAL power and the REAL WEALTH (since America itself has been BANKRUPT for so long) and to assure that no one disturbs the infrastructure of the CORPORATION being promoted or the "STATE" rules and those that are promoted by the courts as MILITARY organizations.

IF EVERYONE KNEW WE ARE STILL UNDER MARTIAL AND MARITIME LAW, IF EVERYONE WAS AWARE OF THE TWO GOVERNMENTS, THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEING THE CURRENT RULING ENTITY, AND IF ALL AMERICANS KNEW THEY WERE WORKING EACH DAY MERELY TO PAY OFF THE DEBTS OF THEIR EMPLOYER, THIS CORPORATION IN D.C., THEN ALL HELL MIGHT BREAK LOOSE AND THE MILLIONS OF ARMED CITIZENS JUST MIGHT USE THOSE ARMS TO START A NEW REVOLUTION!

BEFORE THE NOOSE CAN BE TIGHTENED ENOUGH TO HANG US ALL, THE CORPORATION WILL FIRST HAVE TO DISARM THE CITIZENRY, SO NOW YOU CAN SEE WHAT GUN CONTROL IS REALLY ALL ABOUT!

GIVE UP YOUR GUNS, FACE COMPLETE MARTIAL LAW!

WE CAN JUST SAY NO....NO, BECAUSE OUR ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS STILL IN EXISTENCE!

The original Constitution was never removed; it has simply been dormant since 1871.
It is still intact to this day.

This fact was made clear by Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) by giving the following dissenting opinion:
Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”
The dissent written by Justice Harlan held that the U.S. Congress was always bound to enact laws within the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
In it, he said,

"This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place."

He held that the Congress had no existence, and therefore had no authority, outside of the U.S. Constitution.


TODAY, NOW...

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have "relative" rights or privileges.

One example is the Sovereign Citizen's RIGHT to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a "privilege" that requires citizens to be licensed.

PLEASE, GO AHEAD, GO LOOK BACK IN OUR HISTORY AND SEE HOW MANY LONG YEARS AMERICANS WENT WHERE THEY PLEASED, IN THE MANNER THEY PLEASED WITHOUT A "LICENSE", OR A "LICENSE PLATE".

WE NOW HAVE TO APPLY FOR LICENSES FOR EVERYTHING FROM DRIVING TO GETTING MARRIED, TO BURNING TRASH, TO KEEPING A DOG, TO CARRYING A FIREARM ON OUR PERSON IN PUBLIC, OR TO HUNT OR FISH ON "PUBLICLY OWNED" LAND.


THESE LICENSES WOULD HAVE BEEN NOT ONLY UNACCEPTABLE TO LATE 18th CENTURY TO EARLY 19th CENTURY CITIZENS, BUT A CAUSE FOR RIDICULE THAT ANYONE WOULD BE DUMB ENOUGH TO FALL FOR THIS!
THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION WAS FRESH IN THEIR MINDS. THEY KNEW THEIR GUARANTEED RIGHTS!

THEY WERE UNDER COMMON LAW.
WE ARE UNDER MILITARY-ADMIRALTY LAW.


THOSE CITIZENS KNEW THEIR RIGHTS AND SILLY LICENSES WERE NOT THE ORDER OF THE DAY BACK THEN, SO IF ANYONE HAD TRIED THIS RUSE ON THEM, THEY'D HAVE SIMPLY LOCKED AND LOADED AND PUT AN END TO THE THING.

EVEN IN MODERN TIMES, A FEW SENATORS AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVES HAVE SEEN AND TRIED TO WARN US ALL OF WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED.
WHY HAVEN'T MORE OF US LISTENED?



HOW THE CONSTITUTION WAS USURPED BY THE CORPORATION

"The corporate interest does not benefit the people but uses the people and their labor to make profit for the corporation. This corporation is in concert with the corporate courts and banks to accomplish the theft of the people’s wealth.

The unlawful transfer of the Constitutional money authority over to a private foreign bank (Federal Reserve) has completely devastated all of our lives.

[MY NOTE: I GOT A WARNING FROM FIREFOX NOT TO OPEN THAT LINK. I DID. PROCEED WITH CAUTION, OR CHOOSE NOT TO GO THERE. IT'S A NICE LITTLE ARTICLE.]

This crime of taking the money authority away from “We the People” must be corrected and restored back to the Constitutional Republican form of governance.


This is the only way our country can become prosperous once again."


U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS DISSOLVED!
From a very powerful speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of the United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. 33, page H-1303, Speaker Representative James Trafficant Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House states:


“…It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session
June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.

With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States.

This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States…

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens of mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) “Hypothecated” all property within the Federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title.
The U.S. Citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the Federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets, and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. Citizen to the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States Corporation all of the credit “money substitute” it needed.
Like any debtor, the Federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the Federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves,” the U.S. Citizens, as collateral against the federal debt.

They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks, forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the People have exchanged one master for another.”

By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution.

The problem is that those operating in the District of Columbia, OUTSIDE THE U.S.A., EMPLOYEES OF 'AMERICA, INC.', cannot be tried for treason.
AND THEY WELL KNOW THAT!


BY CONTINUING THIS CHARADE, BY YEAR-AFTER-YEAR KEEPING US IN THE DARK, PASSING NEW AND EVERMORE STRANGLING LAWS, OUR "FEDERAL CORPORATE GOVERNMENT" LOCKS US INTO CONTINUED SERVITUDE, TO PLEDGING OUR ALLEGIANCE TO A NEW CONSTITUTION THAT MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE ORIGINAL, TO "SELLING OUR SOULS TO THE CORPORATION STORE", AND WE ARE JUST NOW BEGINNING TO REALIZE THAT!

SOME ARE...A FEW...BUT IT'S A START, ISN'T IT?

IT'S A START TO HAVE THIS IN FRONT OF US, TO SEE WHAT'S BEEN DONE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

THE NUMBER OF ARMED CITIZENS FAR OUTNUMBER THE NUMBER OF MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT COMBINED...WE OUTNUMBER THEM ABOUT 20 TO 1.

WE MUST KEEP THOSE ODDS!


WE MUST DEMAND AN END TO MARTIAL LAW, TO "NATIONAL EMERGENCY", AND OUT THIS REGIME THAT HAS SOLD US TO FOREIGN DEBT COLLECTORS!


WE ARE PAYING FOR THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.


WE ARE TAXED WITHOUT ONE REAL SHRED OF REPRESENTATION BECAUSE OUR "ELECTEDS" WORK FOR THE CORPORATE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NOT US.

THEY EVEN WORK OUTSIDE THE ACTUAL NATION OF AMERICA, IN THAT SAFE CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.


The Residence Act of 1790, officially titled "An Act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United States", is the United States federal law that settled the question of locating the capital of the United States, selecting a site along the Potomac River.

The federal government, PRIOR TO THIS ACT, was located in New York City at the time the bill was passed and had previously been located in Philadelphia, Annapolis and several other settlements.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT WAS THAT ALL STATES HAD AGREED TO AND HAD RATIFIED THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, COMMON LAW, THE LAW OF THE LAND.

THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT HAD TO BE MOVED TO A PLACE THAT WAS NOT A SOVEREIGN STATE.


THOSE WHO HAD FINANCED OUR REVOLUTION (AND LATER OUR CIVIL WAR, INDEED ALL OUR WARS), THOSE WHO HAD GOTTEN A FOOTHOLD IN THE NEW WORLD HAD TO HAVE ROOM TO MANEUVER US INTO SUBJECTION.

NOW WE KNOW!

WHAT NOW?

                                                           http://youtu.be/ktelD4gxyAA


ENTIRE TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL 14th AMENDMENT
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


***BEGIN UPDATE OF AUG.25, 2013 ***

The so-called 14th Amendment applies to the actions of all state and local officials, but not to those of private parties, and Section 1 of that thing is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution.

The first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause.

The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little.



PAY CLOSE ATTENTION, PLEASE.
The PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES clause states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.."


.Congressman John Bingham of Ohio authored this clause, patterning it after the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article Four of the United States Constitution.

His draft read, "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each state all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states...."
On February 28, 1866, Bingham expressed his opinion that this draft language would give Congress power to "secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States", and he added that, "The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress…with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the constitution today. It hath that extent—no more…If the State laws do not interfere, those immunities follow under the Constitution”

On April 28, 1866, the Joint Committee of Fifteen voted in favor of a SECOND draft proposed by Congressman Bingham, which would ultimately be adopted into the Constitution.

The Joint Committee no longer tracked the existing language in Article Four as the Committee had previously done.

On May 10, 1866, in the closing debate on the House floor, Bingham explained:

" [M]any instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever.

Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, "cruel and unusual punishments" have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none."


Congress gave final approval to the Privileges or Immunities Clause when the House proposed the Fourteenth Amendment to the states for ratification on June 13, 1866. It became part of the Constitution in July 1868.

A November 15, 1866 pseudonymous letter published in the New York Times:
"[N]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."


This is intended for the enforcement of the Second Section of the Fourth Article of the Constitution, which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States."

On January 30, 1871, the House Judiciary Committee, led by John Bingham, released a House Report No. 22, INTERPRETING the Fourteenth’s privileges or immunities this way:

The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article four, section two.


The Fourteenth Amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned', but was deemed necessary for the enforcement as an EXPRESS LIMITATION ON THE POWERS OF THE STATES.

It had been JUDICIALLY determined that the first Eight Amendments of the Constitution were NOT limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article.


Shortly thereafter, on March 31, 1871, Bingham elaborated:

" I hope the gentleman now knows why I CHANGED the form of the amendment of February, 1866. Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the LIMITATIONS imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of A State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States."

THAT'S WHEN THE REAL TROUBLE STARTED.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unique among constitutional provisions in that some scholars believe it was substantially read OUT of the Constitution in a 5–4 decision of the Supreme Court in the 'Slaughter-House Cases' of 1873.
In the Slaughter-House Cases the court recognized TWO TYPES OF CITIZENSHIP, TWO, NOT ONE.
The rights which citizens have by being citizens of the United States (UNITED STATES, NOT united States because that "all-caps" makes the difference) are covered under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the never-ratified 14th Amendment, while the rights citizens have by being citizens of A STATE fall under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four.


In the 1947 case of Adamson v. California, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued in his dissent that THE FRAMERS INTENDED the Privileges or Immunities Clause (Article 4) to apply the Bill of Rights AGAINST the states. Black argued that the framers' intent SHOULD control the Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and he attached a lengthy appendix that quoted extensively from John Bingham's congressional statements.


TOO LATE! Black's position on the Privileges or Immunities Clause fell one vote short of a majority in the Adamson case.

What was previously forbidden ONLY TO CONGRESS to do was, by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, MADE EQUALLY FORBIDDEN TO ANY STATE, ANY SOVEREIGN STATE, LET US ADD.

If a citizen of Washington, D.C., for example, has a particular constitutional immunity, then, according to William Van Alstyne, among the top 40 legal scholars in the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment extends that immunity to all citizens of all the states.

In Gordon Epperly et. al. v. United States, judicial decision (not merely dicta) in the Epperly case said that the validity of the 14th Amendment's ratification was a "political question", and not a "judicial question" -- hence, the Court didn't have the power to decide whether it was properly ratified or not.

The Epperly case cites Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), where the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision in regard to the non-ratification of the proposed Child Labor Amendment (which had been proposed by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress in June 1924 but just barely seemed to miss ratification by the States).

This, too, was deemed to be a political question "not subject to judicial review".

Epperly also cites U.S. v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), a Federal Circuit court case. In Stahl, the Federal Courts declared that the decision as to whether the amendment was properly ratified was a political question, not a judicial question, and thus the Courts had no say in the matter.

It seems pretty obvious that the Federal courts have not, and will not, say anything one way or the other as to the validity of the 14th Amendment's ratification.


IF THEY CALL IT AS IT IS, THE PEOPLE AND STATES ARE FREE AGAIN, SO THEY REFUSE TO CALL IT!

Dyett v. Turner. [http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Dyett.htm].
Apparently, the case dealt with a criminal who had to be released because the lower court didn't explicitly tell him that he was entitled to free legal counsel; the Utah Supreme Court judge who delivered the Opinion for the case thought this was a rather stupid reason to let somebody go. It was in this context that the whole issue of the questionable ratification of the 14th Amendment was presented.

Judicial opinion cited above is real, and can be found in the Pacific Reporter 2d . The Utah Supreme Court was the only court to cite Dyett, and it did so around ten times in various majority and dissenting opinions up through the late-70s/early-80s. Not much to those cases, other than that it was pretty obvious a few of the judges on the court had, shall we say, a few objections to the Supreme Court's jurisprudence.

The somewhat intemperate and UNjudicial tone of the opinion is perfectly consistent with the hostility toward the Warren Court in the 1960s. The US Supreme Court made a number of rulings that simply infuriated the more conservative elements in legislatures, police departments, prosecutors' offices and judges' chambers.

On 14th Amendment grounds, the US 'Supremes' said that the States had to provide attorneys for defendants, had to tell the defendant the he could have a lawyer at public expense, could not question a prisoner until the lawyer got there if the prisoner asked for a lawyer, had to stop questioning a prisoner if the prisoner did not want to talk, tell a prisoner that he did not have to answer questions and could not at trial argue that because the defendant did not talk he must be hiding something.

The outrage about these decisions was something wonderful to behold. "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards appeared all over. Politicians ran for State and national office on a platform of overturning the Warren Court 14th Amendment.


Because the Public Accommodation cases were starting to come in then, there was a political alliance of Southern segregationists, States Righters, and Get-tough-on -crime types.

In a fair number of State Courts there was considerable resentment over the Federal Courts dictating how the State must do things. The Utah decision is probably the consequence of all those resentments in a State that has always been a little spooky about the Supremacy Clause.

The conditions placed by a Republican rump Congress on the admission of Southern senators and representatives and the creation of military districts in the former Confederacy, the insistence that Southern states HAD to ratify the 14th to get back their old status, wasn’t pretty and it wasn’t fair play, but looks like it worked.


Since it happened almost 135 years ago, since the Federal Courts have repeatedly stated they will not consider the question,, even though the 14th has become a foundation of our jurisprudence, the validity of the ratification of the 14th Amendment is questionable, to say the least, and blatantly NOT TRUE by the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION'S STANDARD.

The FORCED-to-comply Southern states that "took back their vote in favor of ratification", that said NO to it being ratified, did so BEFORE the Amendment had passed, nor did a 3/4ths majority of states (AT THE TIME IT WAS VOTED ON) ratify it.

Under the rules established during the Civil War, as a war measure, only people who had taken an oath of allegiance to the US were permitted to vote and no State government was recognized until 10% of the number of people who voted in the 1860 election had taken the oath.

In general the 10% requirement was met by signing up former slaves who under the Emancipation Proclamation were free men.

The result of this was a series of Republican dominated rump State legislatures which were elected without the participation of the vast number of White voters.

These were the Southern state legislatures that ratified the Reconstruction Amendments.
Since the rump legislatures did what the national government and Congress wanted, no one was inclined to ask too many questions.


AND THAT, CADETS, IS HOW YOU CHANGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO SUIT YOUR PARTY, TO MAKE THINGS TURN OUT EXACTLY AS YOU WANT THEM.
THAT IS ALSO WHAT ALL THIS "VOTER REFORM" IS ABOUT, SAME THING, DIFFERENT CENTURIES.
FORCED COMPLIANCE, DOMINANCE, THE WIN, NO MATTER WHO IT SCREWS.

TAKE AWAY THE ABILITY TO VOTE AND YOU GET TO RUN THE ASYLUM ANY WAY YOU PLEASE...ETC, AD NAUSEUM.

Short and sweet, Congress was plenty pissed-off that its powers were LIMITED by the Constitution and it moved to EMPOWER ITSELF. That this came in the SAME time frame as the legislation making the Federal Government a CORPORATION should scream "FOUL !" to all who delve into this.


#14 is the primary means through which the Federal government has legislative and regulatory power over state governments and governance. It isn't the only one (see the commerce and "necessary and proper" clauses, for instance), but the 14th is one of the few/maybe the only "big stick(s)" that the Federal Government can wield over the states.

TAKE THAT AWAY AND WHAT DO YOU HAVE?
SOVEREIGN STATES, MAYBE?
SOVEREIGN CITIZENS?
A CONGRESS THAT HAS LIMITS AND MUST UPHOLD THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION OF THE united States of America, NOT the CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES?
TRY TO IMAGINE THAT....NICE, ISN'T IT?

PLEASE DO WATCH THE VIDEOS BELOW MY LIST OF SOURCES IF THIS IS ALL NEW TO YOU. THEY EXPLAIN MUCH IN QUITE SIMPLE TERMS AND GIVE US A FOUNDATION TO WORK FROM AS WE FACE THE DECISION OF WHAT TO DO TO 'UNCREATE'  AMERICA, INCORPORATED. .




___________________________________

OTHER SOURCES:

[Some Information from the Lisa Guliani's article, www.babelmagazine.com, 'The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials',
and from barefootsweb.net's article, 'Treason in Government, Admiralty on Land'.]

http://research.archives.gov/description/299948



Senate Journal, 39th Congress, 1st Session. p. 563, House Journal p. 889.


House Journal 1868, pp. 578-584 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 471.


House Journal 1866, p. 68 -- Senate Journal 1886, p. 72


House Journal 1866, p. 76 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.


House Journal l866, pp. 210-213 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 183.


House Journal 1866-1867. p. 183 -- Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 138.


House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 262.


House Journal 1866, p. 284 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 230.


House Journal 1867, p. 60 -- Senate Journal 1867, p. 62.


House Journal 1866-1867, p. 108 -- Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 101.


McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452.


House Journal 1867, p. 223 -- Senate Journal 1867, p. 176.


House Journal 1867, p. 1141 -- Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.


McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194.


House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50 -- Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.


Minutes of the Assembly 1868, p. 743---Senate Journal 1868, p. 356.


House Journal, 80th Congress, 2nd Session. p. 563 etc.

Presidential Proclamation No. 153, General Record of the United States, G.S.A., National Archives and Records Service. 30 14 Stat. p. 814.


ETC, ETC, ETC


Invisible Empire, The Act Of 1871



The above video is no-frills, straight to the point....but these videos have a way of being deleted, so here are a few more...just in case...
PLEASE, ALWAYS LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU FIND AN EXPIRED VIDEO OR A BROKEN LINK. THANKS.





The "longer version" and we all need this to fully understand what happened...or to begin to understand.




THE LANGUAGE OF LAW...HOW MARITIME LAW IS THE LAW OF THE LAND, AND HOW EASILY WE WERE DUPED BY "LEGALESE".
From the video:Our society is run by lawyers, our politicians are lawyers, they write our laws. Our judges are lawyers, our presidents are lawyers. They who consider themselves "above" us, do you suppose they want us 'common citizens' to understand the law?
"These are the witch doctors of the current age, ruling over us with their lawyer speak that we could never understand.
We do understand though that this requires sacrificing the individual for the "system".
In order to understand how to resist what is being forced upon us I think it is imperative that we educate ourselves to the multi-faceted system that is the source of our oppression.
So many things we sign, and by doing so waive our rights as natural persons and willingly submit ourselves to this admiralty law. Do you think the lawyers with the contracts and the power over us are going to let us know that? "





//WW

1 comment:

  1. http://youtu.be/QtgtiDtyykM
    Our society is run by lawyers, our politicians are lawyers, they write our laws. Our judges are lawyers, our presidents are lawyers. They are above us, do you suppose they want you to understand the law?
    In order to understand how to resist what is being forced upon us I think it is imperative that we educate ourselves to the multi-faceted system that is the source of our oppression. So many things we sign, and by doing so waive our rights as natural persons and willingly submit ourselves to this admiralty law. Do you think the lawyers with the contracts and the power over us are going to let us know that?

    ReplyDelete