'We the People'

If it is not exactly clear just who are 'We the People', perhaps this paper will provoke more thought and reserach into the matter. I find the linked document to be one of the better treatments of this subject - interesting enough that I read the entire document.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, understand that non-government “citizens” DO NOT act through the organs of the Constitution; “the people” that are holding the offices do, i.e. the officers (private law)7 that are “The State”.

---

Quote:

---

...the phrase which appears in the Preamble of the United States Constitution which states “We the People” are not you and I. This is another misconception that people in the movement seem to embrace. You should understand that such people were the ones who signed the Constitution. Such people are the actual men who have obligations to their contracts. One of the purposes of the document was to make all “citizens” in the [U]nited States of America their constitutors.

---

So, does 'We the People' only refer to those that are signatory to The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (along with their Posterity), or does 'We the People' only refer to the offices of the United States, or does 'We the People' refer to both?

P.S. If some other thread has already been created for this topic, I'll ask one of the admins to merge this into that other thread.

I hope it not unfair to LB so I will explain my impressions.

It was a long time ago now that I got on the PAC website and pretty quick, because I was not studying The Red Amendment - LB's book, he began to attack and belittle me. So be warned that I have a bad taste in my mouth. I am not objective and have not researched out what I have to say, in the same tone that I am too tired to read his paper.

He wrote a book that is flawed, in my unstudied opinion. I don't remember exactly why I decided that though. LB's website structure is the business plan for his book. People earn money by selling his book. I think whenever you buy a book, then you are encouraged to become a commissioned salesperson for it. But in the nature of books, people only buy one of them. So the people who stay on the PAC Website, all five of them, are more driven about The Red Amendment than I am about redeeming lawful money here. Sadly - being on my wrong side anyway, LB seems to have made his own bed.

The concept though that you present, maybe LB's theory - or maybe he adopted it - I have never studied it past the most fundamental flaw. Men did not sign the Constitution. States signed the Constitution through representatives with hands to scribe signatures, speaking for the States. Therefore the concept that those men were party to the Constitution is very limited and the idea that the signatures expired with the men is nonsensical enough that I have never delved into it enough to form an informed opinion.

If you can explain why I might be wrong about that though, I might pick up the paper tomorrow, after a good night's sleep.


P.S. I just remembered...


Tim TURNER's RAP/RuSA reconciled the flaw by saying the Consititution was signed by 56 people. That would mean the Signors of the 1776 Declaration of Independence. There you are starting to make some sense in the inheritance concepts. But then TURNER's habitual lying about military support, international support and funding interfered with me studying that out too.

For a spell, Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON, Esquire was attempting to usurp Tim's Presidency and lectured on a Talkshoe. I grabbed the fuller show and snipped an interesting segment relating to Patroons, New York and that it never became part of the quorum to ratify the Constitution. This applies to some of my family history and me hashing through my perpetual inheritance from the original Patroon charter etc.

Dr LIVINGSTON Presumes Fraud.
Dr. LIVINGSTON about NY.

Very, very true, David.

Even Judge Andrew Nepolitano stated that States were parties to the Constitution.
There are even Supreme Court cases affirming what is stated in this thread such as the Paddleford case.
Let it be said, that there are many, many misconceptions about the Constitution which I'm certain the government allows to continue for purposes of faith, fealty, and revenues :).

If any constitution applies to people, it would be their State constitution.

If actors who are US citizens can assume State offices, what is to prevent one from assuming the title of "We the People" of a particular State?

I think that when a man or woman signs a valid oath of office, they just became party to the constitutions.

Dr LIVINGSTON Presumes Fraud.
Dr. LIVINGSTON about NY.

this links are broken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SecuredAmerican

Dr LIVINGSTON Presumes Fraud.
Dr. LIVINGSTON about NY.

this links are broken

---

The second one is still good.

Thanks for telling me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I think that when a man or woman signs a valid oath of office, they just became party to the constitutions.

---

One key thing is that the USA Constitution has been alleged to afford is protections to public servants. Ergo: if the Treasurer of Pennsylvania steals $50M, rather than being gunned down Scarface ganster style, he is to get a trial. Islam and the protections afforded to slaves comes to mind...for...some...reason.

IMHO "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" is just a fancy title. There were twelve. Perhaps EU is now trying to 'steal the show' with its 12 stars but a couple hundred years late. [+ Delaware -Georgia]

Quote:

---

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire [1], Massachusetts Bay [2], Rhode Island and Providence Plantations [3], Connecticut [4], New York [5], New Jersey [6], Pennsylvania [7], Maryland [8], Virginia [9], North Carolina [10], South Carolina [11] and Georgia [12], to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. [Treaty of Paris, 1783]

---

Quote:

---

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire [1], Massachusetts Bay [2], Rhode Island and Providence Plantations [3], Connecticut [4], New York [5], New Jersey [6], Pennsylvania [7], Delaware [8], Maryland [9], Virginia [10], North Carolina [11], South Carolina [12] and Georgia (O RLY?), to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

---

There are two variations in the wild: one with Delaware one without. But even still, including Delaware, Georgia didn't properly sign the Declaration. But ok even if they didnt, "His Brittanick Majesty" declared the sovereignty of all 13 even if they were all 13 part of the 1774 to 1776 United States (Association). There would still be twelve. If Delaware was included then what else could they mean but the State formed by the Lenape and other nation?

Quote:

---

And it is further agreed on between the contracting parties should it for the future be found conducive for the mutual interest of both parties to invite any other tribes who have been friends to the interest of the United States, to join the present confederation, and to form a state whereof the Delaware nation shall be the head, and have a representation in Congress: Provided, nothing contained in this article to be considered as conclusive until it meets with the approbation of Congress. And it is also the intent and meaning of this article, that no protection or countenance shall be afforded to any who are at present our enemies, by which they might escape the punishment they deserve. (Treaty of Ft. Pitt aka Treaty With the Delawares 1778)

---

Attachment 835

:)

Quote:

---

A delegation of Delawares visited Philadelphia in 1779 to explain their dissatisfaction to the Continental Congress, but nothing changed and peace between the United States and the Delaware Indians collapsed. (Wikipedia)

---

Interesting how voila the "first state" is Delaware and so many major companies have made a point to incorporate in .. State of Delaware (Ralston, US Bank, etc etc etc). Aint that interestin'.

And in 1789 (10 years after 1779) you have this Constitution and Delaware is the first state.

Quote:

---

Of the corporations that make up the Fortune 500, more than one-half are incorporated in Delaware. It is no wonder that Delaware has become almost a brand name for the ?business? of serving as the official home for corporations. (Source)

---

Was "His Brittanick Majesty" actually acknowleding the sovereignty of the Lenape nation? Just maybe. :)

Attachment 834

Ain't it interesting that Lenape (Delaware) turf covers Manhattan, City of New York, New Jersey and Delaware? So if Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON is correct and accurate, why did they take the USA meetings to Delaware/Lenape turf? Note: PHILADELPHIA IS IN THE HEART OF LENAPE TURF!!!

Quote:

---

Europeans often referred to all Native Americans as Delawares, since many lived along what the Europeans named the Delaware River. In reality, the native people in this area were as diverse as the European immigrants.(Source)

---

So who had the truest claim to the land? Why would anyone want to set up shop in cahoots with the Lenape? :)

Quote:

---

On this day in 1776, the Assembly of the Lower Counties of Pennsylvania declares itself independent of British and Pennsylvanian authority, thereby creating the state of Delaware.

Delaware did not exist as a colony under British rule. As of 1704, Pennsylvania had two colonial assemblies: one for the "Upper Counties," originally Bucks, Chester and Philadelphia, and one for the "Lower Counties on the Delaware" of New Castle, Kent and Sussex. All of the counties shared one governor. (Source)

---

How could "His Britannick Majesty" have declared a non-existent colony to be independent?

P.S. Even if we consider a late and retroactive approbation of Georgia with respect to the Declaration of Independence, Lower Counties were part of Pennsylvania so would there not properly be 12 colonies party to the said Declaration?

Attachment 837

Note that the Delaware Constitution of 1776 wasnt framed by Delaware but by "The Government of the Counties of New Castle, Kent and Sussex, upon Delaware" (are they upon a river like DC is on the Potomac?). In that Constitution it was to be called after the fact "The Delaware State".

1st State: Delaware
2nd State: Pennsylvania
3rd State: New Jersey

Aren't all of them in the "Lenape Zone"?

Regardless, August 26 is over a month after the Declaration of Independence.

However.. lets say that "on Delaware" means "in Delaware" then perhaps it was formed within the jurisdiction of the Lenape/Delawares?

Note I: the Articles of Association (1774) were done at (or in) (City of) Philadelphia.

Note II: The Lower Counties were said to have declared independence from Pennsylvania and the British Crown on June 15, 1776. That would be just a month or so before the Declaration of Independence. Why doesnt the Declaration of Independence instead refer to Lower Counties on Delaware like the Articles of Association of 1774 or the Articles of Confederation? ESPECIALLY since the official stile of didn't change until August or September of 1776?

Fascinating reading Allodial. I might try to answer some of your questions after a good night's sleep!

P.S. Thanks for the link! I note in the preamble to the formation of the Continental Congress that they distinguish between East Indies trading company and West Indies - Dutch and British claims.

I am planning to get down to the federal respository in the morning light. Dogs all concerned about an intruder (caught in the act) have put a crimp in that good night's sleep.

Another thing: the earliest books I could find referring to the Articles of Confederation were from 1782/1781...they both indicate that the stile of the confederacy was to be "United States of America". Alleged scans from the US Govt and later books indicate that the stile was to be "The United States of America". Could there be any significance to this?

Re Dutch & British. Could it be that the Dutch and the Lenape/Delawares and the US-ians reached some kind of agreement that has been buried in history? Treaty at Ft. Staniwix might give clues.

Relevantly, according to a New Jersey-ish attorney, they dont give warranty deeds to the land as part of real estate transactions.

Re: Delaware. Delaware was formed in time for the Treaty of Paris to mention Delaware. However, it was never technically a colony. Yet still, there would have only been 11 or 12 parties to the Declaration of Independence. But if we look at the Respublica v Sweers notion of the United States starting with the Articles of Association of 1774 there would have been 12 states: New Hampshire [1], Massachusetts Bay [2], Rhode-Island [3], Connecticut [4], New-York [5], New-Jersey [6], Pennsylvania [7], The Lower Counties [8], Maryland [9], Virginia [10], North-Carolina [11], South-Carolina [12]. If the Lower Counties are discounted as part of Pennsylvania then 11. Georgia clearly was not a party to the 1774 Association.

Quote:

---

Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, between the colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the counties at New-Castle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia.

---

Apparently that was the original title of the first draft of the Articles of Confederation of July 12, 1776.

Quote:

---

The Articles of Confederation served as the written document that established the functions of the national government of the United States after it declared independence from Great Britain. It established a weak central government that mostly, but not entirely, prevented the individual states from conducting their own foreign diplomacy. (US Dept of State)

---

EXACTLY *WHAT* national government was there when they were free and independent?

What doctrines, if any, have changed to justify this lawless result? Perhaps the most pernicious, and least understood of these new doctrines, is the stealthy destruction of the principles of freedom. At the turn of the century, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of pathetic decisions called The Insular Cases. Briefly, the high Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it. Later, in 1945, under cover of the first nuclear war on planet earth, the high Court extended this doctrine by ruling that the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone, only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, by statutes.

The federal zone is the area of land over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. These are areas which are under the American flag, yet they are not within the boundaries of any particular State. They are territories, possessions and federal enclaves, like military bases. Recent research has proven, conclusively, that the Internal Revenue Code, the set of laws used to collect the income tax, can only be enforced within the federal zone, and upon citizens of that zone. A Congresswoman has even admitted as much, in 1996, on official stationery from the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. This discovery is consistent with the doctrine established in The Insular Cases, of which Downes v. Bidwell is the most notorious.

1871, 1837


Link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

What doctrines, if any, have changed to justify this lawless result? Perhaps the most pernicious, and least understood of these new doctrines, is the stealthy destruction of the principles of freedom. At the turn of the century, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of pathetic decisions called The Insular Cases. Briefly, the high Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it. Later, in 1945, under cover of the first nuclear war on planet earth, the high Court extended this doctrine by ruling that the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone, only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, by statutes.

The federal zone is the area of land over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. These are areas which are under the American flag, yet they are not within the boundaries of any particular State. They are territories, possessions and federal enclaves, like military bases. Recent research has proven, conclusively, that the Internal Revenue Code, the set of laws used to collect the income tax, can only be enforced within the federal zone, and upon citizens of that zone. A Congresswoman has even admitted as much, in 1996, on official stationery from the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. This discovery is consistent with the doctrine established in The Insular Cases, of which Downes v. Bidwell is the most notorious.

1871, 1837


Link

---

Yes! That is an edifying find:

Quote:

---

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.

---

So the entire Federal Reserve Districts where we handle private credit FRNs are US property. The Fed is an instrumentality of the US.

This is why we find a traffic case dismissed and even the driver license reinstated when handled properly by redeeming lawful money.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Perhaps any way one looks at it, the goal was to create a 'decoy'. In the Treaty of Paris "United States" was not mentioned as a thing itself but as a "placeholder" for:

Quote:

---

New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia

---

The Articles of Association (of 1774) (though Respublic v Sweers claims the United States existed back that far or something) doesn't even contain the word "united" so much as any mention of United States. But one might have to go back further (if they can do that with Respublic v Sweers) to even the United Colonies. Parties to the Articles of Association of 1774 parties are obviated.

Quote:

---

We, his majesty's most loyal subjects, the delegates of the several colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower counties of Newcastle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, and South-Carolina, deputed to represent them in a continental Congress,

---

Could the trick have been to declare the independence and sovereignty of the colonies but not of "the United States" as a separate entity itself? To declare the creators sovereign but have their pre-independence creature remain under British rule?

I have a book called Inventing America. Tell me if you see anything you want me to specify. Let me know how this link works for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Men did not sign the Constitution. States signed the Constitution through representatives with hands to scribe signatures, speaking for the States. Therefore the concept that those men were party to the Constitution is very limited and the idea that the signatures expired with the men is nonsensical enough that I have never delved into it enough to form an informed opinion.

Tim TURNER's RAP/RuSA reconciled the flaw by saying the Constitution was signed by 56 people. That would mean the Signors of the 1776 Declaration of Independence. There you are starting to make some sense in the inheritance concepts. But then TURNER's habitual lying about military support, international support and funding interfered with me studying that out too.

---

If anyone takes a look that can plainly see that "We the People" is written in the same font as the titles. The parties to the Constitution of 1787/1788 were clearly states of America. Men in the organic sense didn't sign the Constitution. What throws up red flags re: Dale R. Livingston is that if the Constitution of 1787/1788 is a scam then why is he talking about 'saving it'? Even if its a scam remember the Northwest Ordinance, the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence precede it.

***

I recall as I learned about USA-ian history that things made sense up to the Constitution of 1788. What begged an answer was the question of why would they fight so hard only to set up a government that the historical record had repeatedly raised red flags against. Of course 'teachers' didn't want to consider the question. The Constitution of 1788 seems to at most established a constitution for a central government for the territories of the United States.

A snippet regarding Robert Livingston (1688-1775) who appears to be the grandfather Robert R. Livingston (1718-1775) and Benjamin Franklin (from page 13 of Preliminaries of the Revolution 1763- 1775 by a George Elliot Howard). In the book there is a footnote regarding Robert Livingston in reference to page 840 of volume 4 of Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York. "Conveniently" the scans are missing from books.goog. Note: evidence is that the Whigs were for devolution and destruction of the free and independent states of America.

Attachment 1083
Attachment 1084

Michael Tsarion: Declaration Deception 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIhMn3_glpA

Gets good around the 5 minute mark and then pay close attention at the 9 minute mark.
They knew what they were doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

Michael Tsarion: Declaration Deception 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIhMn3_glpA

Gets good around the 5 minute mark and then pay close attention at the 9 minute mark.
They knew what they were doing.

---

Although an interesting video, there are errors in the work. The word 'subject' is rather synonymous with the word 'citizen'. Also, they weren't necessarily aiming for separation from Britain in 1775. Some argue that George Washington could not have been a citizen of the United States eligible for being President of the United States. He joined the Continental Army in 1775, and thusly would have been a citizen of the United States for 13 years come 1788. He would also been a citizen of Virginia since he held public office in Virginia.

I tend to agree with Michael TSARION's view that the Constitution was effectively along the lines of an act of a superior parties creating a central government for inferiors. The superior (i.e. free and independent states of America) ordained a "Constitution for the United States of America" and thereby created a central government for the territories of the United States. The United States means collective of all of them rather than what pertains to only one of them. The states of America (aka the United States in the sense of a plurality) meted out a charter for the government for citizens of the United States (i.e. subjects of *all of* the United States--not just one or two). However, a citizen of New York was not necessarily a citizen of the United States.

Quote:

---

Anonymous Lady: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
Benjamin Franklin: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

---

Consider that George Washington joined the Continental (US) Army in 1775. Come 1788 he would have been a citizen of the United States for twelve to thirteen years by virtue of his being a subject-soldier of the Continental Army (and thusly a citizen/subject of ALL OF THE STATES OF AMERICA WHICH UNITED). George Washington was a public officer of Virginia and thusly a citizen of Virginia as well. The colloquial use of "citizen of the United States" had no legal weight. A private citizen of Virginia likely had no obligation to the Continental Congress whatsoever.

The requirements of being a citizen of the United States for holding office of senator or representative under the Constitution of 1788 makes it clear: one has to be a federal employee/subject to hold those offices. Dulocracy anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Dulocracy anyone?

---

Allodial, you always bring new and interesting stuff....
Never heard of a dulocracy until today.

http://dulocracy.com/

Your Bad allodial: Lol, shikamaru you never cease to amaze me.....

Just like it was written in Invisible Contracts:

The King's Equity Jurisdiction relevant in an Employment factual setting, for most folks, this act transpired when they were a teenager and they signed a form and mailed it to Washington, and requested a Social Security Number.

Pursuant to your administrative request, the King issued out a Number, and so now the contemporary beneficial use of that Social Security Number by you in an Employment setting creates a taxing liability; as the Federal judiciary considers participation in Social Security to be a taxable franchise, among other things.

be mandatory upon them.......
CHAPTER 666-1ST SESSION

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Allodial, you always bring new and interesting stuff....
Never heard of a dulocracy until today.

http://dulocracy.com/

---

J.D. Sweeney's work is quite a work. I was informed that the original print version was privately circulated and uber-rare. The are alleged to be three volumes. Dulocracy might be best viewed in the perspective of Saturnalia .


[ Btw, somehow post #15 got truncated.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

J.D. Sweeney's work is quite a work. I was informed that the original print version was privately circulated and uber-rare. The are alleged to be three volumes. Dulocracy might be best viewed in the perspective of Saturnalia .


[ Btw, somehow post #15 got truncated.]

---

Allodial, you are too much, my man.

Too heavy :).

Attachment 1093
Attachment 1094

This are two snippets regarding the allegedly ratified U.S. Constitution from a book in turn quoting a book entitled Division and Reunion written by Woodrow Wilson. Again, it is a perspective. The snippet discusses the Constitution of 1787/1788 not the Articles of Confederation and not the Declaration of Independence. A helpful model is the Student Union at a university. The students get to elect presidents and choose what color crepe paper will deck the walls during parties. But who drafts the Student Union rules? The university's Board of Trustees maybe? Who runs the university? Again the university's board of trustees maybe?

The hard hits from allodial :)....

More from the book Division and Reunion by Woodrow Wilson:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gX5...5%2C797&edge=0

The positive is in knowing where to avoid looking for solutions and foundations upon which to avoid building houses. AFAIK, the Constitution of 1788/1787 wasn't properly instituted anyway. It smacks more of a charter for a private trading corporation anyway. Using syntax obfuscation to 'rule' is an old, old stratagem. Is it The United States of America or the United States of America or the United States or these United States?

On the topic there is a perspective that may be missed by some. Consider high-minded, spiritually-principled folk in 1600s to 1700s the facing an inrush of travelers with lower and perhaps very base moral standards (and this kind of thing was spelled out in a book I have in my library but don't quite remember which). Consider the spiritually-principled folk not at all wanting to be either be ruled by or to share power with newcomers that they perceived as being base or low-minded. So comes the notion of 'dual system'.

The posts are with a view to remedies and solutions. Redeeming lawful money and such.

Attachment 1095

Attachment 1096

Attachment 1097

OK. I found the book ("The Revolutionary Movement In Philadelphia") and here is a snippet from it.

Attachment 1098

Consider that much of the problems with natives to America were caused by folks who might be referred to as "low minded".

Attachment 1100Attachment 1101

Perhaps some like to broadstroke. But imagine, brown-skinned and fairer-skilled English folk just enjoying their lives and in comes the types that might be described as bigoted, money-worshipping, drunkards or slave-mongers. Puts history in perspective.

Attachment 1099

A matter of character instead of outer appearances. Being clean and upright on the inside vs. such merely on the outside. Like with the alleged battle between the "rich" and the "poor" or between "socialists" and "capitalists" its like a hammer, it really depends on the character of who is wielding the thing as to what one might think of it. That is why socialism or communism isn't the answer. If all of the members of a socialists society are dirty, rotten, scandalous, selfish and thieving... how far will the allegedly 'utopian' sharing go? If honest, principled men ran all the banks how much different might it be. Just how much depends on who is in the driver seat and on their character.

Quote:

---

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

---

Interesting that we have in the taxonomy of United States-es a plurality obviated at Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America 1788/7. The same definition of United States appears to be that of the Treaty of Paris. However, before the Civil War one might find language like "United States and their territories", but after the Civil War ....

From Section 2 of the same Constitution document:

Quote:

---

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

---

Notice the change up from 'their' to: "Controversies to which the United States shall be a {singular} party"... interesting ain't it? When sued they are sued as a singularity. Some might suggest the singularity is known as the Government of the United States (i.e. 'the corporate rendition'.. a singular state).

Skipping ahead to 1812 one would find an alleged declaration of war which alludes to "the United States of America and their territories". This kind of language is said to have been utilized only 1862 to 1864:

Quote:

---

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be and is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof.[1]

---

And in 1857:

Attachment 1119

Click on here:

http://recordingsearch.car.elpasoco....pr/Search.aspx

and enter #095110459 into the Instrument # field.

Notice the Grantor and Grantee.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_969.jpg

Do you have scans of the document. Didn't come up with the search. Interesting if they'd be making a deed to themselves which isn't unheard of.

Quote:

---

Re Dutch & British. Could it be that the Dutch and the Lenape/Delawares and the US-ians reached some kind of agreement that has been buried in history? Treaty at Ft. Staniwix might give clues.

---

There you have the significance of the Van Pelt Milestone. If I went to Brooklyn and Wall Street I could probably find more supporting evidence that Van Pelt Manor was never a "Manor" at all - that is to say subject to British manorial law. I remember reading a chapter about that period of development in Tragedy and Hope by Carroll QUIGLEY. I would like to pick that book up again some time.

This passage has caught my eye for some time!

Quote:

---

...Litte Peter VAN PELT was on the end of the line, and he was the last boy to whom George Washington spoke; and to little Peter he looked very tall, as he came near to him and laid his hand on Peter's head.

"Be a good boy, my son," said Washington, "and you will be a good man."

Little Peter VAN PELT probably remembered this admonition...

---

That strikes me very interesting considering this scenario:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/3...tmilestone.jpg

I have a lot more to fill in the gaps but this is just a quick response. There is monumental and historical claim from my ancestry to both the Five Boroughs and Wall Street too. Here is where the Van Pelt Milestone stood in 1925:

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9...stonec1925.jpg

My ancestor piloted (chartered) a ship in about 1650 with seventy souls aboard from Utrecht (New Utrecht is New York) in the Dutch Netherlands and is guaranteed a perpetual inheritance by the Charter, Section VI:

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4...xemptions1.jpg

I know how flimsy that all sounds but I believe I have the facts all straight. My career life seems to be about exercising remedy to the end of redeeming and reclaiming the original estate of the Levite heritage to METRO - the cities and their suburbs of I Chronicles 6. - Which is to say Melchizedek (the Elect without Bloodline) presides over the Levite priesthood. My interpretation is about as biased as it gets but the only argument I have heard worth entertaining is that the Dutch claims were overrun by an early hostile takeover by the British and as I have shown there is evidence that even Mason WASHINGTON recognized that the Van Pelt "Manor" evaded that takeover by the British West Indies Trading Company.

Attachment 1124
Attachment 1122
Well that the Lenape and the Dutch made some kind of 'deal' seems rather apparent. My ancestry and inheritances unknown-to-me attracted a host of people trying to (forcibly) get me married up to one chic or another. Other than femmes being attracted to me naturally there were those of course who were conspiring with others and knew things that I didn't quite fully know and were plotting arduously--even frantically. Thusly, I wouldn't on a whim dismiss the significance of the Van Pelt manor despite any potential bias. Of course after quite arduous time I did come to realize that they were aware of details of an inheritance--they knew it but I didn't and they through one face or another kept trying to befriend me somehow and kept encouraging me to visit certain parts of the country to meet distant family. Of course, they didn't want me to realize it without them being in close relationship with me so then of course so they could "share". Of course the experience proved helpful as a smaller model paralleling something larger that helped make it easier to 'decrypt' something more complex.

Re: METRO. I don't give too much credit to METRO. But I can perceive value in having a claim on one or more cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

[CENTER] My interpretation is about as biased as it gets but the only argument I have heard worth entertaining is that the Dutch claims were overrun by an early hostile takeover by the British....

---

Well that argument reminds me of the one given about the other 13th amendment. I figure there are two 13th amendments ..keeps the peace.