'We the People'

[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.

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

[allodial]

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.]

[shikamaru]

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 .

[allodial]

Woodrow Wilson on "the Constitution"




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?

[shikamaru]

The hard hits from allodial ....

More from the book Division and Reunion by Woodrow Wilson:

[allodial]

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.

[allodial]

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



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



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.



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.

[allodial]

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:

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 a

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:

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:

[David Merrill]

Click on here:

http://recordingsearch.car.elpasoco.com/rsui/opr/Search.aspx

and enter #095110459 into the Instrument # field.

Notice the Grantor and Grantee.

[allodial]

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.

[David Merrill]

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!

...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:

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:

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:

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.