U.S. legal theory - Putting it all together

[Satori]

While a lot of us do our research and gain points of experience in our comprehension of the current nature of the Union, every so often it's beneficial to pause and contemplate the overall theory of how it all fits together. I wanted to broach such a discussion on the nature of the U.S. government, STATE OF, COUNTY OF, and CITY OF governments, of the corporations and persons within them, of cabbages and kings. Well alright, probably not cabbages.

We're learning that they're federally-owned corporations. So they're both corporate in nature, and federal as well. Of course, if the federal government can't have its way outside of Washington D.C. as per the Constitution, and the de jure states of the Union never lawfully conferred, vested, nor otherwise gave their land and authority to the federal government, they're not only out of their own territory, but they're in the doghouse for being here as well. Meanwhile, the actual commercial corporations doing overt business in the U.S. have incorporated into the federal government's UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Inc.), so in law they would be... subdivisions of it. And all the little "persons" milling and bumbling around within the lawful States of the Union are "residents", things identified as being

a) employees of,
b) citizens of,
c) property of, and
d) enemies of,

the federal government (again, based in Washington D.C.) who just happen, through pure chance, kismet, cosmic influence or the whimsical act of some fanciful and capricious deity not to be currently living in D.C., but outside of it. Not just a few, but hundreds of millions of them. Pretty much all of them, in fact. Every citizen here but us.

So the government's federal and corporate (acting as it does through shell corporations), the corporations are the federal government's pet corporate subdivisions, and the "persons" the Union has become saturated with are corporate personae, whose indentured servitude and whose property back the Federal Reserve Notes put out by the Fed via its lapdog, the beholden federal government.

Did I miss anything so far?

Probably, primarily, only admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and the use of executive war powers. I'd been told they'd been de-bunked, but I've also read that police officers have been reshuffled into FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Authority, which would make them Executive Officers (er, not C.E.O.'s, but Officers within the Executive Branch of the federal government who just happen to be big, beefy, and one notch short of the riot squads and the Armed Forces, and out in the streets rather than behind a desk somewhere).

This would make sense. Say you're in (or manipulating) the federal government. You've got three branches (Executive, Judicial, Legislative), and being (or being in kahoots with) foreign bankers contract law is a breeze for you. You come up with a kind of Name Game where the people "opt-in" to be treated like shell corporations, and the federal government exerts control through various other shell corporations ("STATE OF _____." "SUPERIOR COURT OF ______, COUNTY OF ______."). You make the rules whereby one legal fiction is allowed to treat this other group of legal fictions a certain way, and then just dupe them on opting in with a soundalike name. It's all perfectly scandalous, but logical. So you garner "opt-ins" the same way George W. Bush's voting machines garnered him votes, and gradually erode the country's political nature to meet your needs.

What happens to legislative, judicial, and executive authority? It's exerted beyond its bounds outside of Washington D.C., ostensibly due only to contracts with those who, so the story goes, opted in. A fascist state based on fraudulent contracts is ghoulish enough, but what happens when it encroaches on sovereigns? It often blithely ignores them, having a firm grip on the majority and status quo. But is it exerting mere influence through these shell corporations, or attempting to act in its executive, legislative, and judicial capacities? Are these mere corporations dealing with contract law, relying on acquiescence and contractual nexi to heft authority against the citizens who've "agreed" to be "persons"? Or are they corporate "leaves" on the branches of federal governance as well?

If so, they're well outside their Constitutional parameters. But are police officers, for example, examples of unconstitutional "standing armies" in what is, in the lawful Union, still officially peacetime? (If so, that means they're fair game for commercial liens just for existing as they do, but I'll leave the salivating and cutlery-sharpening for another time...) Or is it just all brute, if surreptitious, force and contractual acquiescence in commercial law? I once read from a transcript of a magistrate who'd said that something was not, as was expressed to them, "unconstitutional" in nature, merely "nonconstitutional". The argument they'd made was that they weren't in violation of the Constitution, they had merely set it aside and were working from another basis. I couldn't see how that could possibly be; out of their jurisdiction and delegation of authority is out of their jurisdiction and delegation of authority - unlawful is unlawful. But suppose, rather than accepting such a statement as valid, we evaluate it on its merits as a possible legal theory explaining what's been going on.

Federal Powers + Outside their yard = Unlawful,

but

Federal Powers + Outside their yard + Individual consent = Quasi-lawful

If I go out one night, find one of you at a bar, buy you a few drinks, then haul you off with me while you're incapacitated, tie you in my basement and engage in various nefarious acts with you, it's against the law. But if I do the same things and we're consenting adults who have prearranged to have that kind of heavy BDSM scene together with those parameters, it's not against the law.

If this is their basis, they're really not kidding when they use the terms, "legal" and "color of law". It's like a little kid sneaking cookies in the kitchen... until the parents tell them "No", they can say they thought it was okay. And thus they get further and further out from their Constitutional constraints, knowing all the while that it's not okay but doing it anyway, a defrauded people in the back seat too drunk to say no. When a few of us raise a fuss, they pretend not to hear (and from my own "court" experiences, sometimes literally). They make an assumption and make it a Herculean chore to correct the matter because they'll pretend to misconstrue your corrections 'till the cows come home to roost (which is when you have them on embezzlement, by the way, for accepting payment to perform a duty and then not doing it).

Does Unconstitutional behavior + Proof of Notice of Unconstitutionality + Disregard of Notice = Proof of Treason?

I've gone into a lot here. Does anyone want to discuss what I've presented, and/or add to it?


- Satori

The only thing I can think of that you missed is where to find a continual supply of tar and feathers.

Jerry.

Originally Posted by Satori

While a lot of us do our research and gain points of experience in our comprehension of the current nature of the Union, every so often it's beneficial to pause and contemplate the overall theory of how it all fits together. I wanted to broach such a discussion on the nature of the U.S. government, STATE OF, COUNTY OF, and CITY OF governments, of the corporations and persons within them, of cabbages and kings. Well alright, probably not cabbages.

We're learning that they're federally-owned corporations. So they're both corporate in nature, and federal as well. Of course, if the federal government can't have its way outside of Washington D.C. as per the Constitution, and the de jure states of the Union never lawfully conferred, vested, nor otherwise gave their land and authority to the federal government, they're not only out of their own territory, but they're in the doghouse for being here as well. Meanwhile, the actual commercial corporations doing overt business in the U.S. have incorporated into the federal government's UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Inc.), so in law they would be... subdivisions of it. And all the little "persons" milling and bumbling around within the lawful States of the Union are "residents", things identified as being

a) employees of,
b) citizens of,
c) property of, and
d) enemies of,

the federal government (again, based in Washington D.C.) who just happen, through pure chance, kismet, cosmic influence or the whimsical act of some fanciful and capricious deity not to be currently living in D.C., but outside of it. Not just a few, but hundreds of millions of them. Pretty much all of them, in fact. Every citizen here but us.

So the government's federal and corporate (acting as it does through shell corporations), the corporations are the federal government's pet corporate subdivisions, and the "persons" the Union has become saturated with are corporate personae, whose indentured servitude and whose property back the Federal Reserve Notes put out by the Fed via its lapdog, the beholden federal government.

Did I miss anything so far?

Probably, primarily, only admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and the use of executive war powers. I'd been told they'd been de-bunked, but I've also read that police officers have been reshuffled into FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Authority, which would make them Executive Officers (er, not C.E.O.'s, but Officers within the Executive Branch of the federal government who just happen to be big, beefy, and one notch short of the riot squads and the Armed Forces, and out in the streets rather than behind a desk somewhere).

This would make sense. Say you're in (or manipulating) the federal government. You've got three branches (Executive, Judicial, Legislative), and being (or being in kahoots with) foreign bankers contract law is a breeze for you. You come up with a kind of Name Game where the people "opt-in" to be treated like shell corporations, and the federal government exerts control through various other shell corporations ("STATE OF _____." "SUPERIOR COURT OF ______, COUNTY OF ______."). You make the rules whereby one legal fiction is allowed to treat this other group of legal fictions a certain way, and then just dupe them on opting in with a soundalike name. It's all perfectly scandalous, but logical. So you garner "opt-ins" the same way George W. Bush's voting machines garnered him votes, and gradually erode the country's political nature to meet your needs.

What happens to legislative, judicial, and executive authority? It's exerted beyond its bounds outside of Washington D.C., ostensibly due only to contracts with those who, so the story goes, opted in. A fascist state based on fraudulent contracts is ghoulish enough, but what happens when it encroaches on sovereigns? It often blithely ignores them, having a firm grip on the majority and status quo. But is it exerting mere influence through these shell corporations, or attempting to act in its executive, legislative, and judicial capacities? Are these mere corporations dealing with contract law, relying on acquiescence and contractual nexi to heft authority against the citizens who've "agreed" to be "persons"? Or are they corporate "leaves" on the branches of federal governance as well?

If so, they're well outside their Constitutional parameters. But are police officers, for example, examples of unconstitutional "standing armies" in what is, in the lawful Union, still officially peacetime? (If so, that means they're fair game for commercial liens just for existing as they do, but I'll leave the salivating and cutlery-sharpening for another time...) Or is it just all brute, if surreptitious, force and contractual acquiescence in commercial law? I once read from a transcript of a magistrate who'd said that something was not, as was expressed to them, "unconstitutional" in nature, merely "nonconstitutional". The argument they'd made was that they weren't in violation of the Constitution, they had merely set it aside and were working from another basis. I couldn't see how that could possibly be; out of their jurisdiction and delegation of authority is out of their jurisdiction and delegation of authority - unlawful is unlawful. But suppose, rather than accepting such a statement as valid, we evaluate it on its merits as a possible legal theory explaining what's been going on.

Federal Powers + Outside their yard = Unlawful,

but

Federal Powers + Outside their yard + Individual consent = Quasi-lawful

If I go out one night, find one of you at a bar, buy you a few drinks, then haul you off with me while you're incapacitated, tie you in my basement and engage in various nefarious acts with you, it's against the law. But if I do the same things and we're consenting adults who have prearranged to have that kind of heavy BDSM scene together with those parameters, it's not against the law.

If this is their basis, they're really not kidding when they use the terms, "legal" and "color of law". It's like a little kid sneaking cookies in the kitchen... until the parents tell them "No", they can say they thought it was okay. And thus they get further and further out from their Constitutional constraints, knowing all the while that it's not okay but doing it anyway, a defrauded people in the back seat too drunk to say no. When a few of us raise a fuss, they pretend not to hear (and from my own "court" experiences, sometimes literally). They make an assumption and make it a Herculean chore to correct the matter because they'll pretend to misconstrue your corrections 'till the cows come home to roost (which is when you have them on embezzlement, by the way, for accepting payment to perform a duty and then not doing it).

Does Unconstitutional behavior + Proof of Notice of Unconstitutionality + Disregard of Notice = Proof of Treason?

I've gone into a lot here. Does anyone want to discuss what I've presented, and/or add to it?


- Satori

[Satori]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

The only thing I can think of that you missed is where to find a continual supply of tar and feathers.

An oversight on my part, I suppose. Community activism and commercial remedy processes like the commercial lien.

I'm finding success with just picking a place, day, and time and advertising community meetings. Something simple and word-of-mouth, like:

Me: "Have you heard about the Bear Meetings?" (I live in California; it's the State critter.)

Not me: "What are Bear Meetings?"

Me: "We've been doing some research, and it turns out that COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ isn't Santa Cruz county, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA isn't California. They're corporations, and they're federally-owned. That means according to the Constitution they can't be here, only in Washington D.C.. That courthouse," <point> "is corporate. That police department," <point> "is corporate. Since the real justice is being dealt on the street anyway, we just make the people legitimate, common law jural society members, and we'll have the lawful authority that that fake court lacks, and we'll be able to shut that police department and that giant concrete cash register they're calling a court down.

The meetings are ____days, at _:__, at ______."

Not me: "I'm there!"

...At the weekly meetings, imagine their joy when approximately an hour of explanation gives them the basics, and starts getting into commercial lien procedure for remedy. Not only can they enjoy their newfound common law rights, but they can make absolutely obscene amounts of money getting rid of corruption in their own city. This kind of lawfulness sells itself, and after you've got a few people who've been brought up to speed, you can have them hold the introductory sessions for the newcomers (a decentralized social network, patterned from peer-to-peer file sharing software techniques, is nigh impossible to shut down) and work with the more advanced members with research and remedy processes between weekly meetings.

You then have a group of people fighting corruption and learning the law, locally. Lots of people means lots of commercial liens, and the federal government's "corporations" suddenly find their business model to be unprofitable in the extreme.

Unlimited tar. Unlimited feathers.


- Satori

The only concern I have with the whole concept, much the same as would be faced with the tar and feathers concept, is the fact that when they are confronted with a commercial lein, they will undoubtedly send out the goon-squad and have you picked up and incarcerated. So much for the weekly meetings... you will then be back at square one, having to deal with them on their level, on their turf and according to their makeshift rules, regs, codes, and other forms of non-law.

otherwise, it is an excellent idea.

Jerry.

[Satori]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

The only concern I have with the whole concept, much the same as would be faced with the tar and feathers concept, is the fact that when they are confronted with a commercial lein, they will undoubtedly send out the goon-squad and have you picked up and incarcerated. So much for the weekly meetings... you will then be back at square one, having to deal with them on their level, on their turf and according to their makeshift rules, regs, codes, and other forms of non-law.

otherwise, it is an excellent idea.

Thanky.

I'm a sovereign citizen encountering some definate quality of life issues in this sociopolitical atmosphere, and I'm also a reincarnationist. This combination allows for a certain liberality of approach on my part (read: frothing private Citizen with a deathwish). For my own part, I could care less, and the decentralized nature of the information dispersal means that, with or without me specifically, the meetings continue to go on regardless. As mentioned, it's difficult to defeat an entire community, particularly when vigilant. Additionally, having a community of people to pull a habeas corpus is a somewhat comforting notion. In a situation where the Powers That Be have it in for someone, I'd much prefer to be directly in the public eye amidst an activist community than out in a remote compound somewhere.

And, lest we forget, further encroachments on my liberties allow for further private claims.

Justice cannot be denied perpetually. It can only be denied until it causes a society to collapse for lack of it. It's kind of like a game of "chicken", with injustice on one side, the collapse of society on the other, driving right for each other at massive speeds. Eventually, something's gotta give. Keeping it all out of public scrutiny in the first place is, if anything, what's allowed it to go on for so long as it is.


- Satori

I can certainly appreciate your zealous nature, though IMHO, your wish to meet with a fatal destiny is somewhat misdirected. Just my opinion.

This forum currently has over 6000 members. A considerable number if they were all within the same local geographical community, however, when they are spread across the nation, then that number has a tendency to loose some of its' impact. Suppose they were all within the same local geographical community. The way that I see it is like this... On the chance that these 6000 were to address the national leaders and demand that the original form of government be re-instated, the national government along with its' force of arms, would of necessity, make all necessary arrangements to annihilate the entire community.

You are again correct in one presumption. Justice cannot be denied perpetually.

With the 6000 spread across the nation, it would be a simpler matter to have them rounded up and incarcerated... on some domestic charge of terrorism or for attemtping to overthrow their form of government. You are really looking at a no win situation at the present moment.

Just my opinion.

Jerry.

Originally Posted by Satori

Thanky.

I'm a sovereign citizen encountering some definate quality of life issues in this sociopolitical atmosphere, and I'm also a reincarnationist. This combination allows for a certain liberality of approach on my part (read: frothing private Citizen with a deathwish). For my own part, I could care less, and the decentralized nature of the information dispersal means that, with or without me specifically, the meetings continue to go on regardless. As mentioned, it's difficult to defeat an entire community, particularly when vigilant. Additionally, having a community of people to pull a habeas corpus is a somewhat comforting notion. In a situation where the Powers That Be have it in for someone, I'd much prefer to be directly in the public eye amidst an activist community than out in a remote compound somewhere.

And, lest we forget, further encroachments on my liberties allow for further private claims.

Justice cannot be denied perpetually. It can only be denied until it causes a society to collapse for lack of it. It's kind of like a game of "chicken", with injustice on one side, the collapse of society on the other, driving right for each other at massive speeds. Eventually, something's gotta give. Keeping it all out of public scrutiny in the first place is, if anything, what's allowed it to go on for so long as it is.


- Satori

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Satori

While a lot of us do our research and gain points of experience in our comprehension of the current nature of the Union, every so often it's beneficial to pause and contemplate the overall theory of how it all fits together. I wanted to broach such a discussion on the nature of the U.S. government, STATE OF, COUNTY OF, and CITY OF governments, of the corporations and persons within them, of cabbages and kings. Well alright, probably not cabbages.

First, there is a brown (Grizzly) bear on the california flag. No brown bears are native to California, only black bears are.

Now, as far as I know California is our state (of being.) State of California is the governmentof the state (state of the state), and STATE OF CALIFORNIA is a corporation residing in D.C. opperated for the beniffit of the State of California.

[Satori]

Originally Posted by Codee

First, there is a brown (Grizzly) bear on the california flag. No brown bears are native to California, only black bears are.

Yes, on the actual California flag (as opposed to the STATE OF CALIFORNIA's flag) there is a gold star, and the bear is the same color as the star.

Of course, I'm cautious about overinterpreting the meaning of the colors, as it was made rather hastily - the red stripe along the bottom was originally done with jam.

Now, as far as I know California is our state (of being.) State of California is the governmentof the state (state of the state), and STATE OF CALIFORNIA is a corporation residing in D.C. opperated for the beniffit of the State of California.

Yes. And when it joined the Union, California was determined by the federal government to be republic in nature. Consequently, I refer to it as the California republic to distinguish it from STATE OF CALIFORNIA. (In U.S. Titles and Codes, their usage of "state" is a federal posession, such as Puerto Rico and Guam.)

There's more information on this page, which I adore. Its State information is California-specific, and I'm currently in a law library researching original sources to corroborate much of its information.

Incidentally, I just looked up the Bill of Rights in California's original, lawful Constitution. Police are indeed unconstitutional here, as standing armies in peacetime are not lawful in California.

Codee, I'd be interested in finding out if we're near each other. I can't send you a PM, as your allotment of Private Messages has been reached. Please PM me on it.

- Satori

[mnchicago]

Satori:

I read your initial post and would have to take exception
with some of your premises.

I am not at all convinced that States, Counties, Cities,
Municipalities are federally-owned corporations, as you
suggest. They may be cooperating with the federal
gov't, but they are not corporate extensions of same.
The Constitution gives the States Sovereignty from the
fed gov't.

I would be intereseted in knowing your source for police
officers being a part of FEMA. While currently a joke, re
New Orleans response to a natural disaster, FEMA was
designed to "take over" all authority in this country, using
either the national guard, or United Nations forces.

Nothing concrete on that, but just part of the overall plan
for a one wolrd gov't.


Right now, it is presidential executive authority, via the
Emergency Powers Act, over 70 years ago, that is riding
hard and heavy on this country, with Congress not standing
in the way. Cheney has done a lot to reassert executive
power.

None are outside their Constitutional parameters. All
are acting under their statutory powers via Art 1, sec 8,
clause 17 authorizing Congress to establish a seat of
gov't, over which it has plenary power. It is a corporate
fiction, all its statutes apply, presumptively, via contract,
which gives them prima facie legitimacy, unless
rebutted, and/or jurisdiction challenged.

They are quite within their jurisdiction and delegation of
authority. Your equation of Fed Powers + Outside their
yard = Unlawful, does not hold true.

Because of their unique "jurisdiction," they have no
Constitutional contraints placed upon them.

The treason is to be found in the Federal Reserve Act
which ultimately has placed this country into the
receivership of the Federal Reserve Corporation/IMF.

We are perilously close to having lost this country to the
bankers.

Just my POV

[Satori]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

Satori:

I read your initial post and would have to take exception
with some of your premises.

I am not at all convinced that States, Counties, Cities,
Municipalities are federally-owned corporations, as you
suggest. They may be cooperating with the federal
gov't, but they are not corporate extensions of same.
The Constitution gives the States Sovereignty from the
fed gov't.

I hope I did not preclude my own intended meaning. The States of the Union most definately are not federally-owned corporations. I was referring to the "STATE OF ______" (such as, "STATE OF CALIFORNIA"), and the various subdivisions within them ("COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA", "CITY OF SANTA CLARA"). California itself is patently not a corporation owned by the federal government. The de jure California and the legally fictitious corporation and commercial nexus STATE OF CALIFORNIA are very distinct entities. (I'm speaking of my own State and its corporate lookalike, as I'm more familiar with them.)

Have a look at this. (Specifically, the section on States.)

I would be intereseted in knowing your source for police officers being a part of FEMA. While currently a joke, re
New Orleans response to a natural disaster, FEMA was
designed to "take over" all authority in this country, using
either the national guard, or United Nations forces.

Something I'd read years ago. I don't recall the source, and as my database and computer have been lost to me, I have no cite on it. I mentioned it nonetheless because the information might be worthwhile, and the source material probably obtainable via a Google search.

Nothing concrete on that, but just part of the overall plan for a one wolrd gov't.

Yes. Optomistic, aren't they.

Right now, it is presidential executive authority, via the Emergency Powers Act, over 70 years ago, that is riding
hard and heavy on this country, with Congress not standing
in the way. Cheney has done a lot to reassert executive
power.

If I recall, Congress authorized a state of emergency which it then could not de-authorize (as the Presidential executive authority via the Act purported to give him sole control, even to declare when it was over). Congress could no more lawfully authorize such a thing which precluded its own duties while continuing to accept pay to perform them than Congressional members could authorize themselves a perpetual paid vacation in Tahiti. Nothing gave them the ability to authorize themselves a free ride on the backs of taxpayers, nor to create a breakdown of governmental checks and balances. No "Act" created could have such lawful authority which they, themselves, lacked.

The Act, while being accepted as lawful, is necessarily void and a pretext for treason by many.

None are outside their Constitutional parameters. All
are acting under their statutory powers via Art 1, sec 8,
clause 17 authorizing Congress to establish a seat of
gov't, over which it has plenary power. It is a corporate
fiction, all its statutes apply, presumptively, via contract,
which gives them prima facie legitimacy, unless
rebutted, and/or jurisdiction challenged.

And such is fine with me, provided they stay in D.C.. They have not; they are using bizarre contortions of contract law to exert authority throughout the Union by means of false "STATE"s, created as zones (Districts) in which to manage federal employees who "just happen" not to be living in Washington D.C. at the moment, but rather in a State within the Union. And gotten private Citizens to purportedly agree, through fraudulent contracts, to being such.

Here at least, the STATE was never to my knowledge ceded any land nor authority by the California republic. But when the STATE OF CALIFORNIA's Constitution was drafted, people were defrauded and accepted it as the newest revision of the California constitution. Many governmental agencies, including several courts, dissolved because the new corporate charter did not provide for their existence. STATE OF CALIFORNIA then continued to act as governance of California unlawfully, and without ownership of the soil and without lawful authority.

As the land and authority was never ceded to STATE OF CALIFORNIA, it's nature is a shell corporation with no land, and contractual nexii that are acting unlawfully within California. The contracts comprising the nexii are fraudulent and void ab initio. Therefore it is a shell corporation with no land, no authority, and no contractual nexii, but acting unlawfully in California under color of law and color of authority. Its charter should be yanked without ceremony.

They are quite within their jurisdiction and delegation of authority. Your equation of Fed Powers + Outside their
yard = Unlawful, does not hold true.

Because of their unique "jurisdiction," they have no
Constitutional contraints placed upon them.

Here we see the distinction between law and color of law made blatant. Passing an Act (or drafting any kind of legislation) exceeding lawful authority does not grant, cede, or vest that authority. It merely means that politicians have engaged in fraud, wasted their work hours, funded by the people, on something else instead (embezzlement), and committed treason. Such legislation, though convincing, is necessarily void in law.

The treason is to be found in the Federal Reserve Act
which ultimately has placed this country into the
receivership of the Federal Reserve Corporation/IMF.

There, as well.

We are perilously close to having lost this country to the bankers.

Only through contracts the federal government was never authorized to make. Lawful monies are gold and silver, if I recall correctly. And the land of the Union, excepting the District of Columbia, was never theirs to begin with.


Be well,

- Satori