State v. Government

[Codee]

This topic started in the travel forum but I though it was moving in a direction more appropriate to the court forum.

Originally Posted by CitizenSoldier

You did not create any of the states - they were created from their respective Enabling Acts.

I have been contending that I, and fellow men, continually create the state as we exist. I also hold that this gives me control/jurisdiction over the state and for logical reasons I should control what I create because that is the definition of responsibility. CitizenSoldier and a few others have done a good job of denying this possition I hold. I will try to support my first contention here and work on providing credible citation for the latter contention as I have time for it. I also contend that all government are "incorporated terms" and that the states all have corporate governments called "THE STATE OF SUCH AND SUCH". All of this centers around what I believe to be the best decided case ever in America. I believe that Justice James Wilson may be the only man ever concerned wtih the people generally while he was in public office. Quotes are in red or in quote boxes.
Chisholm v. Georgia; 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed 440.
"... A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. ...
Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former."

Please notice that Man contrived the state. Also please take non-judicial notice that "to contrive" means:
To plan with cleverness or ingenuity; devise: contrive ways to amuse the children.
OR
To invent or fabricate, especially by improvisation: contrived a swing from hanging vines.

And here we begin to get a real idea of what a state is. After reading the following do we agree that "state" is the "state of mind" of all the men. This is the only logical conclusion I can come to.

Chisholm v. Georgia
"By a state I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this [456] feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men."

And here we are shown that the state is not the government. That the government was created in turn by the state of all free persons is also evident. It also seems that this body of free persons formed the "State." The following is a clearly stated phrase clearly outlining the state as distinct from the government.

Chisholm v. Georgia
"In doing this, I shall have occasion incidently to evince, how true it is, that states and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker."

That the state did not exist prior to these "persons" forming it. There is also no right to incorporate. Incorporation is so "dangerous" infact that the the states claim sole right to allow this alien evil pressence to exist. Now lets think about how "person" MUST mean corporately veiled. NOT TRUE. If the state, which makes corporations existed AFTER persons did then how could the state create corporations that existed before the state did. I will not try to guess which came first the chicken or the egg. Instead I take the possition that Men can become persons for the purpose of forming a state. These Men now holding the disposition of "person" now create a state and inturn the government of that state, HOWEVER these persons are still soverein Men and did not yeild this supreme power of man to the state by nature of becoming persons. Now some persons aren't men. The state is a Citizen and a person, but not a man. So what the hell does person mean in statute? EVERY PERSON. And what is your remedy? "Not only am I person I am a man. I HAVE SOVEREIN IMMUNITY." Also you have the remedy of disbanding the state by lack of creating it, you do however have to get alot of people on board for this remedy (like in california it would probably be about 50,000,000 people,,,just a guess) Unfortunatly there is not much recourse when the entire population creates a ****ty state of well being. Here is the support on this one too. Please notice that this is the one istance where the people have NO REMEDY for anything, and it happens when we all get too dumbed down. Please retrieve your loved ones from public school,,,NOW! These are strong words that follow, please understand that "no remedy" SUCKS!

Ludecke v. Watkins <http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/US/335/160.html> (1948), 335 U.S. 160; 92 L.Ed 1881, 1890; 68 S.Ct. 1429.
"All systems of government suppose they are to be administered by men of common sense and common honesty. In our country, as all ultimately depends on the voice of the people, they have it in their power, and it is to be presumed they generally will choose men of this description: but if they will not, the case, to be sure, is without remedy. If they choose fools, they will have foolish laws. If they choose knaves, they will have knavish ones. But this can never be the case until they are generally fools or knaves themselves, which, thank God, is not likely ever to become the character of the American people." [Justice Iredell] (Fries's Case (CC) F Cas No 5126, supra.)

And the following describes what happens when the state starts calling itself "The people of the state of California" instead of "The people of the state of california represented by assembly." IT BECOMES DESPOTIC.

Chisholm v. Georgia
"In despotic governments, the Government has usurped, in a similar manner, both upon the state and the people: Hence all arbitrary doctrines and pretensions concerning the supreme, absolute, and incontrolable, power of government. In each, man is degraded from his prime rank, which he ought to hold in human affairs: In the latter, the state as well as the man is degraded."

Now if I am soverign and the source of the law couldn't I make any contracts with the state as I want and not diminish my sovereinity. As the source of law it should stand to reason that if I say I can,,, well that I can. I don't get where the government can tell me what is contract law, I sure as hell didn't come up with contract law.

Here I have posted another case to try to shed light on the difference between a "state" and the "state government." It is the government that is out of control NOT the state the WE CREATE(D) This idea is saddly lost in time and is not muched discussed or addressed in an idnirect manner.
This case also CLEARLY tells why you should/must sue malfesent officers in their "personal" capasity and not the state itself. The state does stand on sogvern immunity HOWEVER it is our immunity it stands on. The State government (its actors/officers) do not posses our immunity.

Poindexter v. Greenhow (1884), 114 U.S. 270, 29 L.Ed 185, 192-193, 5 S.Ct. 903.

(d) [quoting] Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat., 738, ... ["]...In the discussion of such questions the distinction between the government of a State and the State itself is important and should be observed. In common speech and common apprehension they are usually regarded as identical; and as ordinarily the acts of the government are the acts of the State, because within the limits of its delegation of power, the government of the State is generally confounded with the State itself, and often the former is meant when the latter is mentioned. The State itself is an ideal person, intangible, invisible, immutable. The government is an agent, and, within the sphere of the agency, a perfect representative; but outside of that it is a lawless usurpation. The Constitution of the State is the limit of the authority of its government, and both government and State are subject to the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States and of the laws made in pursuance thereof. So that, while it is true in respect to the government of a state, as was said in Langford v. U. S., 101 U.S., 341 [Bk. 25, L. ed. 1010], that the maxim that the king can do not wrong has no place in our system of government; yet it is also true, in respect to the State itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government and not to the State, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful.That which, therefore, is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the State, but the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name.