PDA

View Full Version : Monarchy in the US!?



Robert Dolen
01-03-2011, 07:45 PM
I was slightly perplexed at seeing this order of issue, by the British Queen, concerning American Social Security:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1778/contents/made

Title: "The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997"

The american acceptence: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/internationa...t_Texts/uk.html (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/international/Agreement_Texts/uk.html)

No doubt this should put a different face on the constitution and things like "independence". What is most important is the order and procedure, not the content. That the Queen can issue "UK Statutory Instruments" in such a manner raises a lot of question.

I tried to tie it to something and came across this:


"In 1871, three years after the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, the government defaulted on its war debts, forcing America into bankruptcy.[12] What resulted is considered the death blow to the united States for America.[13] On February 21st, England claimed what was theirs, according to international law, and incorporated the ten mile square that is Washington D.C.[14] England also incorporated the American Constitution and names for its new corporation, such as THE UNITED STATES, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S., and USA, as well as other titles, as declared in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871.[15] A point of interest in these copyrighted names is the implementation of the article “THE.” Before this time, America was a union of “united States,” not a union of “the united States.” The article “the” doesn’t exist when referring to other countries, i.e. Canada and Britain aren’t referred to as “the Canada” or “the Britain.” The British-controlled Corporation, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, exclusively uses the article “the” in its name, which is distinct from the “united States” or the “United States.” One other immense change to America simultaneously occurred: being a bankrupt nation, the united States retained only the power to settle civil disputes, not criminal matters, allowing room for the illusion that only Britain’s private, ever-changing laws appertain to America’s criminal disputes. British law literally attempted to fill the gap created by the bankruptcy without anyone knowing, making it appear that everything was going just as usual. Since this point in history, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has been governed entirely by foreign, private, corporate law and Washington, D.C. has been under British control.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation, whose jurisdiction is applicable only in the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia and to whatever properties are legally titled to the UNITED STATES, by its registration in the corporate County, State, and Federal governments that are under military power of the UNITED STATES and its creditors.[16]

Being incorporated, people need permission to use Britain’s imposed laws. These people, who use this British legal system for and usually against the American people, are referred to as attorneys, as opposed to lawyers. Yes, there’s a difference. The word “attorney” comes from “attorn,” which means to turn over to another; transfer.[17] In old England, the title of attorney meant one who attorned (“attourned” is the old English), which meant to transfer money, goods, etc. to another.[18] Attorneys served the king or queen in handling disputes regarding money/goods with their peasants. In modern times, attorneys transfer things of monetary value through court procedures to both other forms of money/goods and to new owners, being either persons or the government.[19] Attorneys have limited legal power because they are sworn to uphold the British, copyrighted law. A lawyer isn’t limited like this. Many believe that one needs to get licensed in order to practice law – this is an utter fiction. One needs to become licensed if one wishes to become an attorney in order to avoid a copyright violation[20], and the way to do this is to pass the BAR exam and register with the American BAR Association. The American BAR Association is an appendage of the BAR Council, which is the BAR association of England. The term BAR is an acronym for British Accreditation Register[21]: the registry for those who have been accredited to use America’s British copyrighted law.

Beyond this point in America’s legal history, any laws that came about were private laws of Britain. Any sovereign Citizen is exempt from these private laws. Anyone who doesn’t dispute being a 14th Amendment “citizen” is subject to these private laws. The 13th Amendment eliminated involuntary servitude, but it said nothing about voluntary servitude. The 14th Amendment was a gateway for voluntary servitude to take place. At this time, simply claiming to be a sovereign Citizen and not a 14th Amendment “citizen” was, legally speaking, enough to avoid being subject to Britain’s private laws. How could the Brits get people to agree to be these citizens? The answers they found were implemented into a plan that materialized into the New Deal.

[1] Senate Report 93-549, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973
[2] a.k.a. the Lieber Instructions and the Lieber Code
[3] “It is sometimes argued that the existence of an emergency allows the existence and operation of powers, national or state, which violate the inhibitions of the Federal Constitution. The rule is quite otherwise. No emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution. An emergency, however, while it cannot create power, increase granted power, or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved, may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power already in existence, but not exercised except during an emergency.” - 16 AM.Jur.2d, Section 71, National League of Cities vs. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 49 L.Ed.2d 245
[4] The creation of the Titles of Nobility Act was an important cause for the War of 1812 and was the direct cause for the burning of the Library of Congress during it.
[5] Notice the capitalization of “United” in the first instance and the conflict with the second instance. We will discuss why this was done soon.
[6] There is also much controversy regarding whether this amendment was ratified by members of Congress who had signed under duress, making their signatures invalid. Notice how the capitalization of “united States” changed from the old 13th Amendment.
[7] It will become apparent why a national debt is included in this package later on in history.
[8] Black’s Law Dictionary 1178 8th ed., 2004
[9] The 14th Amendment was never properly ratified because it lacked the proper governing authority to do so. “I cannot believe any court, in full possession os its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted.” (State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 540, pp. 941-2, 1975) Also see Utah Supreme Court Cases Dyvett v Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267 and State v Phillips, (1975) 540 P 2d 936. Also see Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972. Also see 28 Tulane Law Review, 22 and 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484. Also see the Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646.
[10] Also, being an attorney, he possessed a title of nobility, which according the still technically valid old 13th Amendment made his reign as president illegal. We’ll discuss more about why attorneys aren’t in favor of the people soon.
[11] The Commander of the Southern army
[12] A statutoryprocedure by which a (usually insolvent) debtor obtains financial relief and undergoes a judicially supervised reorganization or liquidation of the debtor's assets for thebenefit of creditors. [Black's Law Dictionary 156 (8th ed. 2004)]
[13] This event did not truly destroy the united States for America, it just put in place a corporation that exists simultaneously, causing the people to forget that they are truly Citizens of the united States for America.
[14] 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62
[15] Title 28 USC Section 3002(5) Chapter 176; 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724
[16] Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, Section 34 of the Forty-First Congress of the United States, Session III, Chapters 61 and 62, enacted February 21, 1871
[17] Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009
[18] Black’s Law Dictionary 138 (8th ed. 2004)
[19] In the third part we shall discuss the processes that take place to perform these actions.
[20] Although the owners of the copyright wouldn’t likely press charges for the sake of concealing this fact.
[21] a.k.a. British Accreditation Regency

- - -

I am not a lawyer of statue (or otherwise) so I contacted Bob Chapman at the International Forecaster, alledgedly one of the best forecasters in the business with much insight into deep state US, and he said:

"It is as it says it is, the US is a corporation, controlled by the British Crown and in some instances by the UN and the IMF. It is a very complicated subject that most people cannot believe, but it is true."

Magda Hassan
01-04-2011, 12:24 AM
I think you will find the UK monarchy is also a corporate entity. You might find this thread interesting: http://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1344-Listen-to-this!-Excellent!-Lawful-Rebellion.-Privatized-government.-Corporate-government.
It is a video and takes about 30 minutes to watch but well worth it if you can. It covers the UK context but I believe it is similar in the US and other places.

David Guyatt
01-04-2011, 11:48 AM
I suspect this is not dis-similar to the double taxation agreement between the UK and US (as well as other nations obviously) and does not extend any further than a state to state mechanism for ensuring ex-pats some sort of agreed relief in times of difficulty.

Just a guess, anyway.

Robert Dolen
01-04-2011, 01:46 PM
I do know that the City Of London, the square mile, is a Corporation, it says so on their frontpage. Wiki affirms City as running local government services and that the Corporation is its own Police Authority, moreover being a "largely independent" realm since its inception.

So to me this looks like a series of proxies. The Queen got shafted by the bankers after the wars of Napoleon, then they nestled into the US, not least with the Federal Reserve Act 1913. The Monarch or the "Crown" appears as the front puppet, which the City already had "signed up" in a particular manner.

David Guyatt
01-04-2011, 02:08 PM
Robert, could you please point me to a specific Act of Congress that verifies what you state above regarding the alleged corporate status of the USA?

If such an Act does exist, it would be available for reading on the Congressional website (http://www.house.gov/) or a similar US government website.

Robert Dolen
01-04-2011, 02:14 PM
I have not found it myself, but the way I understand it hitherto, the implication is effectively embedded in the Act of 1871, the "DC" Act, that created the District Of Colombia. and associated resolutions. It has a lot to do with understanding the legal definition. For example "Person" can be a State in these manuevers, so one has to understand the exacting defintions, to understand the order.

Check for example: Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia."

David Guyatt
01-04-2011, 02:19 PM
The reason I ask is that the idea smacks of a real out there conspiracy theory that is subscribed to by certain fringe US groups (and not more than a few of those that I can see either?).

I doubt it is true.

But I am prepared to be convinced it may be true if there is absolutely undeniable verification for it.

I have yet to see that.

It has yet to be supplied.

Over to you?

Robert Dolen
01-04-2011, 02:23 PM
To be honest, I don´t care what you believe, nor do I view your words as an assignment. I see pieces here. If you don´t go the mile to read and disprove what has been submitted...that seems slightly "shill" like to me, if you pardon the expression.

Apart from which, Chapman/Forecaster has always been spot on in his commentaries in many ways, and so his merited opinon certainly stands above the unknown players to my mind.

David Guyatt
01-04-2011, 02:33 PM
I won't pardon the expression.

Firstly, I expressed a doubt. Not a belief. A subtle but important difference.

Perhaps too subtle?

Secondly, if you wish to be believed by others here, then you will do well to undertake your own homework and be ready to support any and all allegations you make - because other members will certainly be asking you to support everything you say.

Thirdly, this is not a forum where members may post whatever drivel they randomly choose.

If you will pardon this expression.

Robert Dolen
01-04-2011, 02:37 PM
Not particularly, I have used words like "seems" and "?" and never posted a de facto conclusion anywhere. Although you prefered to dream up otherwise.

Yesterday you never heard of these items, and so speaking like an all-knowing prophet doesn´t seem very profitble. A monarch that issues "order" described as "statutory instrument" carries constitutional implications, unless you view the Queen as a conspiracy theorist.

David Guyatt
01-04-2011, 02:41 PM
:lol:

Ed Jewett
01-04-2011, 04:47 PM
What I know about things British wouldn't fill a teacup, and in America, many individuals would qualify as a fringe conspiracy group, and I am not a lawyer or an expert Congressional acts and legal interpretation..., but these are made available upon a request to shed light of a fellow who lives in a round glass house on a drumlin:

In Foley Brothers, Inc V. Filardo, the Court said,
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears."


1787, several independent states joined together to form united States of America with constitution.


1871, US Congress formed a municipal corporation called "District of Columbia" controlling 10 miles square around Wash. D.C., Puerto Rico, Virginia Islands, Guam, American Soma. This private corporation does not have jurisdiction over the several states of the Union.
They changed their corp. name to "UNITED STATES".


People who live and work in the 50 states of the Union are outside the jurisdiction of this United States (municipal corporation), although the US pretends to or deceives you to make you think you are in their jurisdiction. You can volunteer to be in their jurisdiction - by accepting mail, court actions, etc. but you do not have to volunteer to submit.
"principle of law" "federal legislation" "applies only within the" "jurisdiction" - Google Search

1. How and Why the Federal Government Legislates Outside the ... (http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/howcome.html)
""It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a ..."
www.civil-liberties.com/pages/howcome.html
2. Your Cache Valley | News | Force governments to obey the laws of ... (http://yourcachevalley.com/2010/02/18/force-governments-to-obey-the-laws-of-the-land-use-this-affidavit-memorandum)
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal "legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United ..."
yourcachevalley.com/2010/02/18/force-governments-to-obey-the-laws-of-the-land-use-this-affidavit-memorandum
3. Your Cache Valley | dabodave1 (http://yourcachevalley.com/members/dabodave1)
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal "legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a ..."
yourcachevalley.com/members/dabodave1
4. Text Version - Constitution Society Home Page (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.txt)
"FEDERAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION It is a well established principle of law that all federal "legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of ..."
www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.txt
5. http://bradbva.home.mindspring.com/freedom/sss.htm Is Registration ... (http://www.constitution.org/abus/draft/sss.txt)
"([notes] added) Also, "It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United ..."
www.constitution.org/abus/draft/sss.txt
6. Proper Federal Indictment Procedure (http://www.nomoreserfs.com/documents/Proper_Federal_Indictment_Procedure.doc)
"If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action, judgment, .... established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the ..."
www.nomoreserfs.com/documents/Proper_Federal_Indictment_Procedure.doc
7. A TERRITORY VERSUS THE TERRITORY (http://www.the-law.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4:a-territory-versus-the-territory&catid=4:lee-brobst&Itemid=4)
"It is a well established principle of law that the federal “legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a ..."
www.the-law.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4:a-territory-versus-the-territory&catid=4:lee-brobst&Itemid=4
8. Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis (http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm)
"Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 1 of 17 ..... principle of law that "all federal legislation applies only within the ..."
www.supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm
9. Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Gilbertson : judicary (http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/judicary.htm)
"Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 2 of 39 The ...... principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the ..."
www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/judicary.htm
10. Welcome! (http://contrabandsatellites.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58%3Adan-meador-on-proper-federal-indictment-procedures&Itemid=60)
"principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless contrary intent appears.” ..."
contrabandsatellites.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58%3Adan-meador-on-proper-federal-indictment-procedures&Itemid=60
11. COFEDREG (http://www.scribd.com/doc/7245187/COFEDREG)
""It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the [federal] United States ..."
www.scribd.com/doc/7245187/COFEDREG
12. Brief4usc72 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/7354277/Brief4usc72)
"The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have the jurisdiction of a ..... principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the ..."
www.scribd.com/doc/7354277/Brief4usc72
13. INSTRUCTIONS: 4.17. Handle Your Tax Examination or IRS Meeting ... (http://famguardian1.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/4.17HandleExamSkillfully.htm)
""It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States [which is the ..."
famguardian1.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/4.17HandleExamSkillfully.htm
14. AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MEANING OF THE TERM ëUNITED STATESí ... (http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htm)
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a ..."
famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htm
15. Shelbyville Times-Gazette: Blog: Tennessee Firearms Freedom (http://www.t-g.com/blogs/thomwilliamson/entry/27854/)
""It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United ..."
www.t-g.com/blogs/thomwilliamson/entry/27854/
16. Windows Live space's Blog - Windows Live (http://cid-3690e1f768e1fb3b.spaces.live.com/blog/)
""It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a ..."
cid-3690e1f768e1fb3b.spaces.live.com/blog/
17. the Truth about the Income Tax or the IRS Fraud Exposed (http://www.tax-freedom.com/taxfreedom.pdf)
"(1836)]. “It is well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless ..."
www.tax-freedom.com/taxfreedom.pdf
18. The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook (http://truthradio.com/HistoryBook.pdf)
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal "legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of ..."
truthradio.com/HistoryBook.pdf
19. Citizenship slavery (http://notfooledbygovernment.com/Citizenship.htm)
""It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a ..."
notfooledbygovernment.com/Citizenship.htm
20. THE REPUBLIC NOW and FOREVER! (http://www.orgsites.com/ca/waternow/)
"It is a well established principle of law that the federal “legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a ..."
www.orgsites.com/ca/waternow/ (http://www.orgsites.com/ca/waternow/)
Also google "Federal Zone" by Supreme Law to learn more of how you volunteer to be under control of United States (corp.) when you use either a 2 letter state and or a zip code.
If you say you are U.S. citizen, you are volunteering to be a subject to the United States corp. and abandoning all your constitutional rights as a citizen of the Republic of the united States of America. The constitution & God gives you many unalienable rights.
The US corp. want to license, charge, control and limit your rights. They cannot do that when you begin to understand your unalienable rights and how to enforce them.


http://www.abodia.com/2/US-Corp-limited-jurisdiction.htm



####





The United States is a corporation


You are here: www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm (http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm)


US is a Corp (http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm#Its_a_Corporation). Supreme Court confirms (http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm#Supreme_Court) Federal Zone (http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm#Fedearl_Zone) (zip codes)


District of Columbia, corporation (http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm#District_of_Columbia_) possession of the Queen of England (http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm#possession_of_the_Queen_of_England )
1788 Original Constitution for the united states, original organic, of the people government.
1871 Amended version CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, US is a private corporation.

The UNITED STATES was formed in 1871, which controls only the District of Columbia and the territories it purchases or acquires; Puerto Rico, Guam, Virginia Islands. Many think that income taxes, and some laws do not effect people in the sovereign states of the union as they are outside of the control / jurisdiction of the United States corporation. The United States of America is different from the "United States" [corporation].

The terms UNITED STATES and/or United States of America and/ or United States Government are all a private corporation, even with registered trademark

The US corporation (originally called the District of Columbia) does not effect or control the 50 sovereign states that are protected from the federal government by the US Constitution for the United States adopted in 1788.

There are 2 United States, one formed in 1787, the collection of the several sovereign states of the union, and another separate and different one formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it’s territories. Others may can give you specific references and explain this further. Here is an outline of the concepts.
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.

The Constitution for the United States of America was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention) in Philadelphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia), Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania), and ratified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification) by conventions in each U.S. state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) in the name of "The People".
- - -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=129&invol=141 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=129&invol=141)


U.S. Supreme Court



STOUTENBURGH v. HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141 (1889)


129 U.S. 141


STOUTENBURGH, Intendant of Washington Asylum,
v.
HENNICK.


January 14, 1889

Sections 1 and 18 of the act of congress of February 21, 1871, entitled 'An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia,' (16 St. 419,) are as follows: 'Section 1. That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.' 'Sec. 18. That the legislative power of the District shall [129 U.S. 141, 144] extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act, subject, nevertheless, to all the restrictions and limitations imposed upon states by the tenth section of the first article of the constitution of the United States; but all acts of the legislative assembly shall at all times be subject to repeal or modification by the congress of the United States, and nothing herein shall be construed to deprive congress of the power of legislation over said District in as ample manner as if this law had not been enacted.' These sections are carried forward into the act of congress of June 22, 1874, entitled 'An act to revise and consolidate the statutes of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, relating to the District of Columbia, in force on the first day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three,' as sections 2, 49, 50.

- - - also note:
And Whereas: The Constitution does provide that Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district not exceeding ten miles square, as may, by session of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States.

And Whereas: On February 21, 1871, the Forty First Congress passed an act entitled "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia," legislating the organization of a municipal corporation to run the day to day affairs of the District of Columbia, the seat of government, which transferred the United States of America, the Republic, into "a corporate entity" entitled UNITED STATES, in capital letters, having "no" jurisdiction outside the District of Columbia.

And Whereas: Congress adopted the text of the federal constitution as the constitution or charter of this municipal corporation. This municipal corporation was granted the power to contract to provide municipal services to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia and necessarily as an operation of the privileges and immunity clause of Article Four of the Constitution, any other person who chooses to contract for its services.

- - Is there fraud in our ranks ?

The Webster’s Dictionary states that Fraud means Deceit, Trickery, intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.

The Blacks Law Dictionary states pretty much what the Webster’s Dictionary does but adds about two pages full of information. My favorite part is: A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
- - - -
February 21, 1871 Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871*
With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).

The act -- passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War -- was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America.
Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.

The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the original Constitution for the united States (1788) was defaced in effect vandalized and sabotage when the title was capitalized and the word "for" was changed to "of" in the title
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1871)
is the constitution of the INCORPORATED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does is not !

Capitalization is significant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly "minor" alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans.

What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a 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 Constitution.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the original Constitution, we the people now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a "privilege" that requires citizens to be licensed.

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 original Constitution.
- - - -
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dccases/metrorrc.htm (http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dccases/metrorrc.htm) gives this discussion



JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS





District of Columbia

On May 3rd, 1802 an Act was passed to incorporate the City of Washington. (2 Stat. at L. 195.)
In 1871 an important modification was made in the form of the district government -- a Legislature was established, with all the apparatus of a distinct government. By the Act of February 21st, of that year, entitled "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia (16 Stat. at L. 419), it was enacted (sec. 1) that all that territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia by which name it was constituted a "a body corporate for municipal purposes," with power to make contracts, sue and be sued, and "to exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

This Constitution lasted until June 20th, 1874, when an Act was passed entitled "An Act for the Government of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." (18 Stat. at L. 116) By this Act the government established by the Act of 1871 was abolished.
p 234

By a subsequent Act, approved June 11th, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102), it was enacted that the District of Columbia should "remain and continue a municipal corporation," as provided in section two of the Revised Statutes relating to said District, and the appointment of commissioners was provided for, to have and to exercise similar powers given to the commissioners appointed under the Act of 1874. All rights of action and suits for and against the District were expressly preserved in status quo. p. 234

All municipal governments are but agencies of the superior power of the State or government by which they are constituted, and are invested with only such subordinate powers of local legislation and control as the superior Legislature sees fit to confer upon them. p. 234

The people are the recognized source of all authority, state or municipal, and to this authority it must come at last, whether immediately or by circuitous route. Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540, 545 [23: 440, 441]. p 234

Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 2 Cranch, 445 [ 2:332 ], where the question was whether a citizen of the District could sue in the circuit courts of the United States as a citizen of a State. The court did not deny that the District of Columbia is a State in the sense of being a distinct political community; but held that the word "State" in the Constitution, where it extends the judicial power to cases between citizens of the several "States," refers to the States of the Union. It is undoubtedly true that the District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a State; but the sovereign power of this qualified State is not lodged in the corporation of the District of Columbia, but in the government of the United States. Its supreme legislative body is Congress. The subordinate legislative powers of a municipal character which have been or may lodged in the city corporations, or in the District of Columbia, do not make those bodies sovereign.
- - -
Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871
( a copy of the pages here:http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2009/01/30/2215/
- - - -


The United States Isn't a Country
—It's a Corporation ! by Lisa Guliani


http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm
more here: http://www.wariscrime.com/2009/01/15/news/the-usa-isnt-a-country-its-a-corporation/



- - - - -
Constitution for the United States of America
http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit1.html
- - - - - -
United States - US- U.S.-USA-America ( a possession of the Queen of England)

Means: (A) a federal corporation . . . Title 28 USC Section 3002(5) Chapter 176. It is clear that the United States . . . is a corporation . . . 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724.

`It is well settled that "United States" et al is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name "District of Columbia," 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62. It was reorganized June 11, 1878; a bankrupt organization per House Joint Resolution 192 on June 5, 1933, Senate Report 93-549, and Executive Orders 6072, 6102, and 6246; a de facto (define de facto) government, originally the ten square mile tract ceded by Maryland and Virginia and comprising Washington D. C., plus the possessions, territories, forts, and arsenals.

The significance of this is that, as a corporation, the United States has no more authority to implement its laws against "We The People" than does Mac Donald Corporations, except for one thing -- the contracts we've signed as surety for our strawman with the United States and the Creditor Bankers. These contracts binding us together with the United States and the bankers are actually not with us, but with our artificial entity, or as they term it "person", which appears to be us but spelled with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

All this was done under,

VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS.

In English Law. Courts established in the queen's possessions beyond the seas, with jurisdiction over maritime causes, including those relating to prize.

The United States of America is lawfully the possession of the English Crown per original commercial joint venture agreement between the colonies and the Crown, and the Constitution, which brought all the states (only) back under British ownership and rule. The American people, however, had sovereign standing in law, independent to any connection to the states or the Crown. This fact necessitated that the people be brought back, one at a time, under British Rule, and the commercial process was the method of choice in order to accomplish this task. First, through the 14th Amendment and then through the registration of our birth certificate and property. All courts in America are Vice-admiralty courts in the Crown’s private commerce.


Supreme Law Library : The Federal Zone : index (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm)
"Supreme Law Library. The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue Electronic Eleventh Edition [Note: Small numbers indicate number of bytes in ..."
www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm
2. Supreme Law Firm (http://www.supremelaw.org/)
"The Supreme Law Firm holds informative seminars nationwide, and maintains the ... His massive book entitled "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal ..."
www.supremelaw.org/


- - - - - -


The Illegal Quasi-Government
in Washington D.C.


The "Federal" Government is a Separate Nation
and should be called the United States, Incorporated.


http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/creator/federalgovernment.htm


- - - - - -


Fraud in government ? Wake up, learn, act, become a sovereign, free again


http://www.nmcservices.net/governmentfraud.html






If you doubt anything, learn to check it !





http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm

David Guyatt
01-04-2011, 05:37 PM
Thanks Ed. That clarifies the picture.

As regards the British end of things, the City of London (not London in its entirety, but the business district) is, indeed, governed locally under the terms of the Corporation of London. It has its own police - the City police (who never-the-less operate under the Metropolitan police force) and it has its own Lord Mayor - but not Boris of Bullingdon Boys fame, but the lesser known and lesser spotted variety, namely Alderman (now Mayor, of course) Michael Bear.

All, doubtless, drinking members of the Freemason Arms....

A couple of decades ago (it seems like as hundred though) I used to be a member of one of the City ward clubs that fed, like a gin river, in to the City's "Worshipful" (a nod and wink to the initiated!) Livery Clubs, and thence into the domain of Alderman politics. All, or I suppose almost all, of these "associations" led inexorably to the City's rolled up trouser leg and lambskin apron brigade.

But not a bad drinking bunch as a matter of fact.

Peter Lemkin
01-04-2011, 05:38 PM
To be honest, I don´t care what you believe, nor do I view your words as an assignment. I see pieces here. If you don´t go the mile to read and disprove what has been submitted...that seems slightly "shill" like to me, if you pardon the expression.

Apart from which, Chapman/Forecaster has always been spot on in his commentaries in many ways, and so his merited opinon certainly stands above the unknown players to my mind.

Without making a value judgment....you are very new here Robert - and coming one with quite an 'attitude'. In my opinion David Guyatt is one of the most knowledgeable and honorable, trustworthy persons on Deep Political 'things' on this Forum...or anywhere off of it.....and rather than raise your dorsal spines, I'd suggest you react to his post or just let the whole idea 'go'...into hyperspace - to be forgotten

...just my opinion, of course.

Neither David nor I are new here....although that, alone, means nothing.

Robert Dolen
01-04-2011, 07:07 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) (C)

The code defines unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a “federal corporation (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html)”. 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/hooven.htm#united.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 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html) 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 (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article1). 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_laws).”

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 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/281/464/case.html) US 464, Keller v. PE (or US 464, seller v. PE) 261 US 428, (http://supreme.justia.com/us/261/428/) 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 (http://www.box.net/shared/bsqhmbr5of)

Organic Act 1801 (http://www.box.net/shared/1cny003xj2)

Virginia Cessation (http://www.box.net/shared/1xmvqh0nx0)

House Debate (http://www.box.net/shared/58tae75kie)


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.

David Guyatt
01-04-2011, 07:44 PM
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.



You have completely and utterly misunderstood what is being said. In the links you posted it is stated clearly, to those who can comprehend the English language that this refers to an agreement "between" the Uk and US governments. Not a conspiracy theory fostered by a moonshine soaked hill billy living in a log cabin in the White mountains.

It is a law of Her Majesty's Government to enter into formal agreements with other sovereign nations on matters concerning, for example, double-taxation agreements (see my first clue in post No 2, uttered in clear unambiguous text). In the case at hand it relates to the Social Security (clue 2 -- brackets! United States, close brackets!) Order of 1997. To wit:


The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997

Table of ContentsContentPlain ViewPrint Options What Version
Latest available (Revised)
Original (As made)
Opening OptionsExpand opening options
Status:This is the original version (as it was originally made). UK Statutory Instruments are not carried in their revised form on this site.

Introductory Text
1.Citation and commencement
2.Modification of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and amendment of the Principal Order
3.Amendment of Order
Signature
SCHEDULE 1SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT AMENDING THE AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SCHEDULE 2SUPPLEMENTARY ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

And if you bothered to read any of the material in the links you posted then you would have seen that the "explanatory note" that is on the legislation.gov.uk website (that would be the legislation of HM government to beginners unfamiliar with the concept), you would see - besides the alarming catchy, and oh so thoroghly misunderstood headline that so occupies your thoughts - that:


EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Order)

This Order makes provision for the modification of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 so as to give effect to the Supplementary Agreement on social security (which is set out in Schedule 1 to this Order) made between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America. The Supplementary Agreement amends the Agreement on social security set out in Schedule 1 to the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984 to take into account changes in United Kingdom legislation, in particular as relates to incapacity benefit.

There are also set out in Schedule 2 to this Order the provisions of a Supplementary Administrative Agreement amending the Administrative Agreement set out in Schedule 2 to the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984.

This Order does not impose any costs on business.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1778/note/made


In ordinary English language, this means that there is - amazing as it may seem - an agreement between the governments of the US and UK concerning Social Security contributions pertaining to incapacity benefit.

That is all it is.

And so, if your Grace does decide this is your "last try", we will all gratefully stand down, rest easy, and turn the level 2 idiot alert off -- and gratefully allow you to go off into your self inflicted dreamscape to tell uncle Noam and other VIP's what you think of them to their faces.

Let us not detain you any longer.

Robert Dolen
01-04-2011, 07:52 PM
This is sheer nonsense, the Order was initiated from the Queen, which is the reason why the Monarch´s site stipulates an Order on the front page, under "Statutory Instruments". The fact that US regards and accepts it is the painfully obvious reason why they must post it as an agreement, and not an Order. Show where on the Legislation site the issue is recorded as an "agreement". The title is Order, not agreement. And the US title is "agreement", not Order.

You have absolutely no understanding of legal terms.

Low quality forum, waste of time.

Cheers.

And the only conspiracy theorist is yourself, posting slogans as if they had anything to do with the root issues. Is your unknowing "knowing" based on divine intervention or something far worse?

David Guyatt
01-04-2011, 08:02 PM
Bye bye. :shutup:

Peter Lemkin
01-04-2011, 09:14 PM
My, my, my....easy come...easy go.... I'll stay away from the planted [methinks] poison of the main thesis...or just fuzzy logic; but while some here would not agree with all Uncle Chomsky has said [and perhaps more to what he has NOT said!!!!], I don't think anyone here would call him an 'amateur' nor ever imply he was not well acquainted with the materials he expounds on!

Live and learn. I think he could use a tad of both.:read:

Charles Drago
01-04-2011, 10:12 PM
Not a conspiracy theory fostered by a moonshine soaked hill billy living in a log cabin in the White mountains.

My Dear David,

May I presume to enhance your grasp of American vernacular and geography?

A "hillbilly" would make his log cabin home not in the "White Mountains," which are in northern New England, put in a range in the American South, say the Ozarks.

New Hampshire and Vermont and environs are in fact the homes of swamp yankees.

Now if you will kindly excuse me, I must brush my tooth and return to the still.

By the way, did you hear about the hillbilly who died and left his fortune to his wife?

Alas, she can't touch it until she reaches the age of 14.

Yours,

Jethro

David Guyatt
01-05-2011, 09:16 AM
:lol::lol: