The American Ruling Class

[dutchdivco]

5150

Hre's the link;
TL: Governor’s Corner
which I got from a previous post by Rick. Also, look at his posts in this forum,5022 and 164.
Actually, he's been posting about this a lot. THIS is what the recent symantic debate between him and Alihoa was about; WHICH "Constitution" are you talking about, the 'original' one, or the one written in 1871, that many are saying was not legally 'ratified' or whatever.

As I understand it, there is a legal argument to be made that NOTHING that has been done by this "Corporation" is legal, or at least not legal outside the confines of the District of Colombia. All legal decisions by all courts, all federal Departments 'created', the FED, IRS, FDA, etc. have NO legitimacy.

Hopefully, Rick will 'weigh in' on this, and clarify, as I'm sure I haven't expressed it very well.Jim

[aljhoa]

The District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarter Program was a one-year coin program of the United States Mint that saw quarters being minted in 2009[1] to honor the District of Columbia and the unincorporated United States insular areas of Puerto Rico, Guam, United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The islands commonly grouped together as the United States Minor Outlying Islands were not featured, as the law defined the word "territory" as being limited to the areas mentioned above.[2]

District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al

[rickoff]

As i understand it, back in 1857 (?) (or so) they changed 'things'. They formed a Corporation, which was used to 'replace' the original jurisdictional Gov't. of the United States. All elected 'officers' of the gov't resigned their posts, (Senators, president, etc.) and were promptly appointed as 'officers' of this Corporation.

That understanding is partially, but not quite fully correct, Jim. For a correct understanding we need to start at the beginning. The Founders realized that a physical, geographical area would be needed to establish a seat for the federal government, and that it should be an area within, but separate from, the states of the union. Therefore, the founders included in the Constitution for the United States of America an allowance for such an area to be established. That allowance is stipulated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, and states the following:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

As can be seen from Clause 17, the Constitution allowed Congress to establish a federal District not to exceed an area measuring 10 miles on each side of a square plot of land. The total area of a 10 mile by 10 mile square land area would thus be 10 x 10, or 100 square miles. The Constitution gave no name to the proposed area. Clause 17 also stated that Congress could "exercise exclusive Legislation...over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square).." As you can see, Clause 17 made it abundantly clear that the District would be comprised of land limited to a ten mile square at most, and ceded to the federal government by a state or states for the purpose of establishing a "Seat of the Government of the United States.." Once established, Congress could pass any legislation it desired in regards to that District, but that legislation would only apply to the District - not any place outside the District. Congress could propose a federal law that would apply to the States, but any such law would have to be in the form of a Constitutional Amendment and ratified by at least two thirds of the States.

The federal District was made a reality in 1790, when Congress passed the Residency Act of 1790 which authorized President George Washington to choose a permanent site for the capital city. Washington announced his selection, which included portions of Maryland and Virginia, and on January 24, 1791 work began on the layout and construction projects. On December 1, 1800, the capital was officially moved to the new District from Philadelphia, which had previously been recognized as the seat of federal government. On February 27, 1801, Congress divided the District into the two counties of Washington and Alexandria, and on July 9, 1846, Congress passed a law returning the county of Alexandria to the state of Virginia. Upon doing so, of course, the District became somewhat smaller in size than it had originally been.

On May3, 1802, Congress granted the City of Washington its first municipal charter. Although Washington was officially known at this time as Washington, District of Columbia, the District had not yet been established as a corporation, and this did not occur until June 1, 1871, when Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871. This Act created a new private corporation named the District of Columbia, and which legally trademarked the names "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT", "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "USA", and "America." Thus, Corporation U.S. was formed legally by a legally elected Congress which had every right to create such an institution for the purpose of carrying out federal government business under Martial Law, which was in effect at that time and still is. In this Act, Corporation U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution) which was the same as the Constitution of the United States of America excepting that the original 13th Amendment was dropped and replaced by a different 13th Amendment, and the original 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments were renumbered as the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

Corporation U.S., soon after its formation, began issuing government bonds, and sold these bonds to investors in order to fund government business operations. Unfortunately, Congress wasn't any more cautious about overspending in those days as they currently are, and by 1912 there was more bond debt due to be paid off than funds existing in the Treasury of the United States of America. The 7 wealthy families who had been buying all of the government bonds demanded their scheduled payment, but Corporation U.S. could not make those payments, and to avoid an inevitable bankruptcy the government agreed to forfeit all the reserves held in the Treasury of the United States, plus all reserves held in the Corporation U.S. treasury, and to allow the wealthy families to set up a banking system (the non-federal Federal Reserve Bank) which allowed them to print notes (yes, Federal Reserve Notes) that would be used to finance government operations.

So this was the point at which everything became totally corrupted, and in 1913 Congress passed several new pieces of irresponsible and unconstitutional legislation, along with some new Amendments which they called the 16th and 17th Amendments. Neither of these Amendments belong in our Constitution of the United States of America because they were never properly ratified by the States, but Corporation U.S. simply announced that they had passed and included them in the Corporation U.S. Constitution. Their 16th Amendment was of course their Act to levy an income tax, while their 17th Amendment was an Act to change the way in which Senators would be chosen and seated. It was because of the unconstitutional 17th Amendment that Senate seats in the 1914 elections were not lawfully filled, and thus became vacated since the State legislatures stopped appointing Senators. By 1918, all of the then 96 Senate seats had become vacated.

Thus, your understanding that the government officers "resigned their posts and were promptly appointed as officers of this Corporation" is incorrect. Both those who lost seats in the 1914 election and those who gained seats caused the original jurisdiction seats to become vacated, and none of this was the result of resignations. And everyone in Congress, both before and after 1914, held a position as a Corporation U.S. officer. This was a role which they legally held in addition to their role as a Congress person ever since the Organic Act of 1871, but since 1914, when our original jurisdiction government ceased to constitutionally exist, all officers elected to fill seats in the District of Columbia are now merely corporate officers.

You are correct, however, in your understanding that federal authorities and departments have no Constitutional authorization which grants them jurisdiction over any geographical area of the United States of America other than the District of Columbia. I'll offer here an example of a common constitutional violation by federal employees of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): Suppose that you are fishing in a stream in your state and a FWS 'officer' approaches you and asks to see your fishing license. That 'officer' has no legal authorization to ask that question, or to demand that you produce a 'valid' license, or to charge or arrest you for failure to comply with that request. For that matter, neither can a state official demand such compliance. To understand why, just ask yourself if there ever was a time in your state when people were free to fish without first obtaining a fishing license. If you look into that question you will see that there was such a time. And even recently the public had the liberty to fish in salt waters without a license, but that liberty was unconstitutionally and unlawfully ended by federal regulations requiring a federal fishing license for fishing in salt water within the 200 mile coastal limit of their stated authority. Insane, don't you think, especially since the non-existing federal "government" has no jurisdictional authority outside the District of Columbia. So there are in fact many reasons why such regulations have no legal bearing upon us. In fact, whenever a liberty is converted to a privilege, by state or federal authorities, you have every right to continue pursuing that liberty, and this concept has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States:

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION - "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity." [Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham]

You can probably think of many more instances where other liberties which once were commonly exercised by members of the public in their "pursuit of happiness" have come under assault by state and federal legislators and law enforcement officials whose aim has become to control every facet of our lives, from birth to death, through regulations. That is why we must study the law and understand the laws that protect our rights and liberties.

[zapzap]

Yup, edumacate yourself straight to jail or worse

Not to piss much on your noble parade Rickoff... Back in the '80's your public servants sometimes actually listened to people expressing similar information or of the likes of George Gordon of Barrister's Inn, etc., etc. As long as one was polite, calm and so on, things generally went okay.

Now? They are tazaring 4 year olds and beating people to death (etc.) for NOTHING! And getting away with it over and over. So while educating oneself about all these things is very important, be very sure to be very prepared for the possible outcomes of informing the badge people they don't have jurisdiction or whatnot over you. It can escalate to you being on the wrong end of a swat team all too quickly. Good luck and best wishes!

[dutchdivco]

Zap

I would agree with your caution, to this extent; a LEO is NOT a lawyer, and the place to make these arguments is in a courtroom, NOT on the side of the road, or even on your property, when said LEO's are attempting to arrest you.

Otherwise you may well get shot.

Rick, the link I posted earlier (about the legal wranglings of the company in Texas, making colloidal silver) said something about it being vital how you respond, in court; how you do it by 'special' appearance rather than general, because you have to hold the position from the outset that you don't recognise the courts jurisdiction, also something about how all courts have an 'admiralty' flag, (?) Could you elaborate on this? Oh, and I KNEW I didn't have it right.
You are steeped in this, hope you can understand its a little difficult for many to grasp all this; its "The world turned upside down", where NOTHING is how we thought it was; Money isn't money, our Gov't isn't or at least isn't anything like what we thought it was, etc.
Its all a bit much to grasp, is what I'm saying. Also, just to clarify; THEY haven't done anything to 'plug this loophole', and by subsequent SCOTUS rulings, or legislation, eliminate the ability of citisens to (basically) tell the U.S. Corp. and its agents to go take a hike?
Also, did I see something in the material on original jurisdictional Gov't. about the importance of being a 'landowner'? Is there some legal principle that in order to be a 'citisen' you must own land, or am I mistaken.

And finally, so 5150 COULD (if he steeped himself in the law, edumacated himself, etc. ) say to the authorities "at one time a man in this country didn't need 'permission' or a licence to own a firearm, and so you can't tell me I can't own one, now, regardless of my criminal record? Jim

[5150]

so 5150 COULD (if he steeped himself in the law, edumacated himself, etc. ) say to the authorities "at one time a man in this country didn't need 'permission' or a license to own a firearm, and so you can't tell me I can't own one, now, regardless of my criminal record? Jim

It's much more fun just shooting at the bastarrds while yelling at them "We don't need no stinking permits"

Let me clarify that I am joking, I mean I really don't want the ATF, FBI, DOD, DHS, or anyone else knocking at my door trying to arrest me for making "terrorists" claims as it's really come down to that anymore and the authorities have made such similar arrests of young kids for joking about such things. Thus the disclaimer because I really don't feel like cleaning up any blood off my front porch

As Zap has pointed out the pigs are tasering 4-year old's, killing people and family pets, and unarmed homeless people and getting away with it.

Knowing the law is not going to do anything but antagonize these neanderthals and even the judges have their heads up their back side when it comes to integrity and honesty so good luck even trying to get a fair trial. Anymore you have to pay a lot of money to be found not guilty and that goes tot he heart of the corrupt justice system.

I am sure there will be a boiling point and this is why the government is buying all these bullets and armored vehicles to use on our assses

[aljhoa]

CORPS For-Profit

A few months later, Eric Schlosser wrote an article published in Atlantic Monthly in December 1998 stating that:
"The 'prison-industrial complex' (PIC) is not only a set of interest groups and institutions; it is also a state of mind.
The lure of big money is corrupting the nation's criminal-justice system, replacing notions of safety and public service with a drive for higher profits.
The eagerness of elected officials to pass tough-on-crime legislation –
combined with their unwillingness to disclose the external and social costs of these laws –
has encouraged all sorts of financial improprieties."
Prison–industrial complex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al

[5150]

You are correct, however, in your understanding that federal authorities and departments have no Constitutional authorization which grants them jurisdiction over any geographical area of the United States of America other than the District of Columbia. I'll offer here an example of a common constitutional violation by federal employees of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): Suppose that you are fishing in a stream in your state and a FWS 'officer' approaches you and asks to see your fishing license. That 'officer' has no legal authorization to ask that question, or to demand that you produce a 'valid' license, or to charge or arrest you for failure to comply with that request. For that matter, neither can a state official demand such compliance. To understand why, just ask yourself if there ever was a time in your state when people were free to fish without first obtaining a fishing license. If you look into that question you will see that there was such a time. And even recently the public had the liberty to fish in salt waters without a license, but that liberty was unconstitutionally and unlawfully ended by federal regulations requiring a federal fishing license for fishing in salt water within the 200 mile coastal limit of their stated authority. Insane, don't you think, especially since the non-existing federal "government" has no jurisdictional authority outside the District of Columbia. So there are in fact many reasons why such regulations have no legal bearing upon us. In fact, whenever a liberty is converted to a privilege, by state or federal authorities, you have every right to continue pursuing that liberty, and this concept has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States:




You can probably think of many more instances where other liberties which once were commonly exercised by members of the public in their "pursuit of happiness" have come under assault by state and federal legislators and law enforcement officials whose aim has become to control every facet of our lives, from birth to death, through regulations. That is why we must study the law and understand the laws that protect our rights and liberties.

Ok Rick so wasn't the same true with driving licenses? or with owning and shooting a gun?

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION - "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity." [Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham]

Could I not use the argument (on the way to jail in handcuffs) that owning a gun was once never a privilege but had always been an unregulated right so under that argument they cannot take away or restrict my ownership or possession of a weapon through new laws. ??????????????

[rickoff]

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION - "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity." [Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham]

Ok Rick so wasn't the same true with driving licenses, or with owning and shooting a gun?

Good thinking, and I'm sure that everyone here can think of several such instances where something once considered a liberty has been converted to a privilege through regulations requiring registrations, licenses, and of course fees. Before cars, there were horse drawn wagons and carriages, and none of these required a registration or license tags to be attached. People drove these vehicles without need of obtaining a driver's license, and even children could drive if parents felt their child was ready for such responsibility. There were very few laws concerning the safe use of horse drawn vehicles, and these consisted simply of sensible right-of-way rules of the road. When powered vehicles were introduced, the same few laws were extended to them. Now considering the case of automobiles, which at first slowly began replacing horse drawn buckboards and carriages, you might find it interesting to download this pdf file, which is a history of how automobile registrations and license plates came into being. On page 3 of the pdf file, you will find a table that lists the year that registrations and license tags became compulsory in each of the states. It actually began at the municipal level in a few large cities. The first was New York, in 1901. By 1903, eight more states followed New York's lead, and 17 more states joined them in 1905. It is interesting to note that of the 26 states where a vehicle registration was required in 1905, 23 of them allowed a perpetual registration whereby the owner paid a single small fee and the vehicle remained registered for as long as the owner continued using it. You see, by introducing vehicle registrations in what seemed like a reasonable way to most folks, hardly anyone complained. If those folks could see where we are now at with registrations they would be shocked at the thought of registering every year, paying high registration fees, and in states like Maine also paying an annual excise tax of several hundred dollars. A few wise men, like Henry Ford for example, knew that fees would forever increase once registrations and license plates were required, and he fought against this as being unconstitutional.

So you see, until 1901 there were no states in which a vehicle registration was required. There have been powered vehicles in America since the early 1800's, when the first steam powered ones were seen, and later on, around the early 1890's, electric cars caught on and became very popular as well. In 1903, Missouri and Massachusetts were the first states to require a driver's license, but Missouri did not require drivers to pass an exam until 1952, so clearly their reason for requiring licenses was a monetary revenue one rather than a safety concern. South Dakota, the last state to require a driver license, did not issue their requirement until 1954!

One very interesting fact concerning driver licenses is that Chicago passed a law in 1898 requiring the owners of any and every type of wheeled vehicle, including wagons and bicycles, to be licensed operators. That law was challenged and struck down as being unconstitutional.

Could I not use the argument (on the way to jail in handcuffs) that owning a gun was once never a privilege but had always been an unregulated right so under that argument they cannot take away or restrict my ownership or possession of a weapon through new laws. ??????????????

If you are thinking about possibly using this argument at some point in time then I would advise you to first study what Common Law says about the subject. If there is nothing stated therein, or within the Constitution, that would prevent you from owning or carrying a gun then you would be correct in assuming that any Code, Rules, Statutes, or regulations that attempt to restrict such ownership and possession would be null and void. That's where the following Supreme Court decisions come into play:

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION - The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are not the law.” [Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261]

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION - "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" [Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).]

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION - "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." [Miller v. U.S.]

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION - "All laws, rules, and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." [Marbury v. Madison]

[iflewmyown]

Rickoff, you repeatedly quote this "US. SUPREME COURT DECISION - "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" [Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).]"
First of all it was not a Supreme court case, it was in the ninth court of appeals.
Secondly the quoted quotation does not appear anywhere in the case.
I would love for you to prove me wrong but I think I am correct.
Check GCongress> Emailing: FEDERAL LAW ONLY FOR EMPLOYEES
Garry
P.S. I really like this thread of yours

[zapzap]

Quotes, or misquotes? Mainstream goes wrong.

On the first subject, there are considerable numbers of misquotes regarding cases and/or what they say or the rulings, etc., floating "out there". In some circles it is called patriot mythology or something like that. It is a bad idea to parrot legal quote(s) without looking it up yourself and determining it is valid and if it is the present day ruling authority.
Regarding contact with law enforcement officers, here is yet another example of how two very mainstream people (Professors) got very awry and with long term consequences:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/ny...dayspaper&_r=3

And yes generally speaking, I have never yet heard that quoting cases to badges has, "saved the day". Often the best outcome that can come out that is, "Tell that to the judge!".


I look forward to hearing of anyone's personal experiences.

[5150]

One very interesting fact concerning driver licenses is that Chicago passed a law in 1898 requiring the owners of any and every type of wheeled vehicle, including wagons and bicycles, to be licensed operators. That law was challenged and struck down as being unconstitutional.

What was the case name or a copy of it? I mean if it is already on record being struck down because it's unconstitutional then why are we under the rule of having a license in modern times? I'd like to see the actual case notes of what it said and why its deemed unconstitutional.

[dutchdivco]

5150

There are a couple of possible approaches to your stated 'dillema', depending on what you are really 'bugged' by, and what your real goal is.

During the recent gun control debate, it was pointed out that Obummers Injustice Dept. has been enforcing the Federal law prohibiting ex-cons from possesing firearms. Something like 48 convictions/year??

IF you are arrested by a local cop, for carrying/possesing a gun, (as a convicted felon), they (the local police) have learned that when they notify the fedreal prosecutors, that said prosecutors elect not to prosecute, and so after 24 or 48 hours, (IF that ise only reason the local cops have for holding you) you would be released, but they wouldn't give you back your gun.

IF your off parole, (so you couldn't be sent back for a 'parole violation') I THINK that would be the end of it. Asssuming you didn't use the gun in the commision of a crime, of have 'other' charges, such as drugs, etc.

As I posted earlier, you could TRY to petition the court, to have your rights 'restored'. If succesful, you could then legally own a gun, and VOTE!

But, I get the impression your not just bugged that you can't (legally) own a gun, but with the IDEA that THEY are telling you you can't own a gun.

In which case, you could try this 'last' approach, of legally contesting in court the authority to prohibit you from owning one.

THAT gets 'tricky'; in order to have a court case, you would have to attempt to purchase a gun, and be refused; that refusal would then give you a 'cause of action'. Problem is, (I believe) the law says that for you to even ATTEMPT to purchase a gun is illegal. I SUSPECT that you could go to a Federally licenced firearms dealer, and tell them you didn't want to buy a gun, but JUST wanted them to put your info into the Federal check system, (and pay the $20 or so that they charge for that), and when it comes back negative, (maybe) use THAT for your cause of action?

It also gets 'tricky' in another way, that MAY become an issue; as i understand it, it is your local or state Government that decides what the criterion is, for what names are submitted to the federal I.D. check system; so each local jurisdiction decides who THEY don't want to have guns.

The Feds just 'maintain' and operate the system, and so they would say (I suspect) "Hey, its not on US! Your issue is with your state, which submitted your name to us."

And, as pointed out, you would have to become a 'jail house lawyer', and really do a LOT of research. In addition, you have another problem with this issue; MOST people, corporations, lawyers, ACLU, etc. probably generally support the notion that 'We don't want violent criminals legally owning guns",
so, you might not find a lot of support, is all I'm saying. Jim

[zapzap]

5150, here is a site that gives some of the information you are asking about: Voluntaryist.com

Hope this serves at least as a starting point to your questions on those matters.

[zapzap]

5150, odd, here is the link in full: voluntaryist.com