04-01-2011, 08:07 PM
Ok, I recognize the spirit, I´ve been on the net since it was born, this will be my absolutely last try on this forum, I don´t have much time for the usual inbred codes of informal honor, dissecting rather peripheral elements of userbased hiearchies. I am the sort of guy that tells Noam Chomsky that he is an amateur straight to his face, so hey, it´s a flaw of character I suppose.
Assembling various bits and pieces, parsed with the 1871 Act, It is clear that the Act defines a Corporation, confined to the DC area, but that the Corporation extends to associated 'properties'.
Crosscheck: UNITED STATES CODE Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) ©
The code defines unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a "federal corporation". But of which order really? It seems however in the Act that "UNITED STATES" as defined as a Corporation is limited to DC with copyright.
"The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law." (looks like no apparent issue for the Queen here...)
What increases the complexity is that there seems to be different definitions of "United States" and "United States Of America". If you go to any .gov site the word "America" is not there, except on America.gov. America.gov on the other hand has no references to sites, like the Treasury gov sites etc. The current impression from these texts is that "United States Of America" refers to the states of the union, whereas "United States" refers to the Federal Government.
Note that the plural verb "are" was used, providing further evidence that the "United States of America" are plural, as implied by the plural term "States". Also, the author of 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181 of that definition switches to "United States" in the second sentence. This only adds to the confusion, because the term "United States" has three (3) different legal meanings
:
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/ho...ted.states
However, the decision cited above is Justice Marshall issuing dictum, and it is not an Act of Congress. Here, again, (and I can not assess the judicial value of courts attempting to "legislate" in the absence of a proper Act of Congress. See 1 U.S.C. 101 for the statute defining the required enacting clause:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html
"no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law". This implies that Congress has conferred legal standing on the "United States" to sue and be sued at 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346, respectively:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1346.html
Under the Articles of Confederation, the term "United States of America" is the "stile" or phrase that was used to describe the Union formed legally by those
Articles:
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
When they came together the first time to form a Union of several (plural) States, they decided to call themselves the "United States of America". Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished "United States of America" from "United States" in Congress assembled. The States formally delegated certain powers to the federal government, which is clearly identified in those Articles as the "United States".
Act of 1871 and subsequent legislation such as the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment, defined the 'Sovereigns' as reverted from a Republic to a democracy. Depending on how you interpret the wordings, one could perhaps say that after this point, Americans became, by a new defintion, 'citizens' of a corporation, because the 14th Amendment greatly centralized power in Washington DC.
Perhaps this is what Thomas Jefferson warned about when he described "federal judges" as people "constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric."
None of this does however explain why the British Queen would be able to issue an Order as a Legal Statue at all.
So to find the mechanism for operating Law, which the first reference is of, one has in all likelyhood to go back in time, to see if the declaration of independence has any loophole.
The origin of US law is the Roman Civil Law and Admiralty/Maritime Law better known as the "Divine Right of Kings" and "Law of the Seas", and without any particularly deep research, the indication of Queen issuing Order Of Statue for "United States Of America" could suggest that the declaration of independence did not actually void the prior "law" for some reason, consequently with the "Divine Right Of Kings" of previous order retaining legal statue.
According to Wikipedia "Admirality Law" is "a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law."
And the government which was created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 operates according to the act under "Private International Law", also known as Conflict of laws. You can only have a "conflict of law" if there actually are different legal points of view. So what can be said with current observations is that the Private Law which DC assumed certainly only applies to DC and its definitions, BUT if the definitions of "property" in turn incorporate all practical all assets beyond, it becomes merely a sort of proxy government in a judicial sense
Other 'non verified' observations/assertions:
"The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state." Volume 20: Corpus Juris Secundum, (P 1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L. Ed. 287)
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."Catha v United States, 152 US, at 215
* "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" is different to ""The Constitution For The United States Of America". And that would be the corporate constitution. Per logic "The corporate constitution" operates in an economic capacity if anything. This change did introduce "rights" and "priviliges". One example of this is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has been transformed under corporate government policy into a "privilege" which one, I assume, must be licensed to engage in. This is completely foreign to the original Constitution.
*"There are no Judicial courts in America in the original sense since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes." (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE (or US 464, seller v. PE) 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)
* According to the GATT you must have a Social Security number. House Report (103-826)
I found lots of potentially interesting references relating to the case but when you search on the items you end up on billions of nonsense sites, and I don´t have that much time. Misprints, lack of cohesion, etc...rather useless, I will update my posts with more observations, when I get to the actual original items, not pasted misspelt references.
Attachments:
Organic Act 1871 I
Organic Act 1801
Virginia Cessation
House Debate
Question: By what Law/Constitution can the British Queen issue an Order Of Statue and submit it to "United States Of America"?
That is still the fundamental question, as the primary evidence is provided in the first post.
PS. I just saw a large post, there may be redundant references here.
Assembling various bits and pieces, parsed with the 1871 Act, It is clear that the Act defines a Corporation, confined to the DC area, but that the Corporation extends to associated 'properties'.
Crosscheck: UNITED STATES CODE Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) ©
The code defines unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a "federal corporation". But of which order really? It seems however in the Act that "UNITED STATES" as defined as a Corporation is limited to DC with copyright.
"The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law." (looks like no apparent issue for the Queen here...)
What increases the complexity is that there seems to be different definitions of "United States" and "United States Of America". If you go to any .gov site the word "America" is not there, except on America.gov. America.gov on the other hand has no references to sites, like the Treasury gov sites etc. The current impression from these texts is that "United States Of America" refers to the states of the union, whereas "United States" refers to the Federal Government.
Note that the plural verb "are" was used, providing further evidence that the "United States of America" are plural, as implied by the plural term "States". Also, the author of 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181 of that definition switches to "United States" in the second sentence. This only adds to the confusion, because the term "United States" has three (3) different legal meanings
:
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/ho...ted.states
However, the decision cited above is Justice Marshall issuing dictum, and it is not an Act of Congress. Here, again, (and I can not assess the judicial value of courts attempting to "legislate" in the absence of a proper Act of Congress. See 1 U.S.C. 101 for the statute defining the required enacting clause:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html
"no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law". This implies that Congress has conferred legal standing on the "United States" to sue and be sued at 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346, respectively:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1346.html
Under the Articles of Confederation, the term "United States of America" is the "stile" or phrase that was used to describe the Union formed legally by those
Articles:
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
When they came together the first time to form a Union of several (plural) States, they decided to call themselves the "United States of America". Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished "United States of America" from "United States" in Congress assembled. The States formally delegated certain powers to the federal government, which is clearly identified in those Articles as the "United States".
Act of 1871 and subsequent legislation such as the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment, defined the 'Sovereigns' as reverted from a Republic to a democracy. Depending on how you interpret the wordings, one could perhaps say that after this point, Americans became, by a new defintion, 'citizens' of a corporation, because the 14th Amendment greatly centralized power in Washington DC.
Perhaps this is what Thomas Jefferson warned about when he described "federal judges" as people "constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric."
None of this does however explain why the British Queen would be able to issue an Order as a Legal Statue at all.
So to find the mechanism for operating Law, which the first reference is of, one has in all likelyhood to go back in time, to see if the declaration of independence has any loophole.
The origin of US law is the Roman Civil Law and Admiralty/Maritime Law better known as the "Divine Right of Kings" and "Law of the Seas", and without any particularly deep research, the indication of Queen issuing Order Of Statue for "United States Of America" could suggest that the declaration of independence did not actually void the prior "law" for some reason, consequently with the "Divine Right Of Kings" of previous order retaining legal statue.
According to Wikipedia "Admirality Law" is "a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law."
And the government which was created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 operates according to the act under "Private International Law", also known as Conflict of laws. You can only have a "conflict of law" if there actually are different legal points of view. So what can be said with current observations is that the Private Law which DC assumed certainly only applies to DC and its definitions, BUT if the definitions of "property" in turn incorporate all practical all assets beyond, it becomes merely a sort of proxy government in a judicial sense
Other 'non verified' observations/assertions:
"The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state." Volume 20: Corpus Juris Secundum, (P 1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L. Ed. 287)
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."Catha v United States, 152 US, at 215
* "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" is different to ""The Constitution For The United States Of America". And that would be the corporate constitution. Per logic "The corporate constitution" operates in an economic capacity if anything. This change did introduce "rights" and "priviliges". One example of this is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has been transformed under corporate government policy into a "privilege" which one, I assume, must be licensed to engage in. This is completely foreign to the original Constitution.
*"There are no Judicial courts in America in the original sense since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes." (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE (or US 464, seller v. PE) 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)
* According to the GATT you must have a Social Security number. House Report (103-826)
I found lots of potentially interesting references relating to the case but when you search on the items you end up on billions of nonsense sites, and I don´t have that much time. Misprints, lack of cohesion, etc...rather useless, I will update my posts with more observations, when I get to the actual original items, not pasted misspelt references.
Attachments:
Organic Act 1871 I
Organic Act 1801
Virginia Cessation
House Debate
Question: By what Law/Constitution can the British Queen issue an Order Of Statue and submit it to "United States Of America"?
That is still the fundamental question, as the primary evidence is provided in the first post.
PS. I just saw a large post, there may be redundant references here.