'We the People'

[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

[David Merrill]

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:

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.

[allodial]

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:

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.

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?

[David Merrill]

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.

[allodial]

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.

[allodial]

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.

[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.

[allodial]

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.

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?

[shikamaru]

Dulocracy anyone?

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

http://dulocracy.com/

[Chex]

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