By the end of the Obama administration, President Obama will have signed so many executive orders as to eliminate Congress on important issues. Those executive orders will become precedent that cannot be overturned by a future president, because Obama was elected as a foreign citizen president; as such, he is not bound by the separation of powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution. The precedent has already been set and future presidents will not have the power to overturn the fatal damage that has already has been done. Change is what 14th amendment citizens voted for, but the people failed to ask Obama what change was he talking about? Change to a dictatorship is exactly what obama had in mind when he ran for president. After all, his background training in whatever form you want to call it, whether Communism, Fascism and the likes thereof, had him well prepared for that position as the start of a dictatorship. All executive orders must be published in the Federal Register, then, they become law.

New Treatise/Document for 2010, all documented over 40 years of Research by Lee Brobst.

THE REAL FACTS AND LAW SURROUNDING THE MISUSE OF THE 16th AMENDMENT--CONSTITUTION SOVEREIGNTY AND THE LAW MERCHANT

By Lee Brobst * February 12,2009

After a life time of experience with trial and error in trying to put the dots together, Lee Brobst finally understands how the law and the courts really work, thus he brings forth his own Official Beb Site explaining how the government works and why the people don't get the justice they think they should have. "Persons", can free themselves from the oppression of government using the correct premise and procedures in law and in the courts. The issues of law and facts presented on this site addresses what the real premise of the law is and how it was lost and converted into the wrong premise. If the premise is wrong, everything is wrong. The wrong premise has created mass confusion and frustration as to the correct interpretation of the United States Constitution and laws that results in failure.

Unbeknown to most people, the American people become bankrupt in 1933. As a result of the bankruptcy and the coming of the massive debt load by the people, the government has launched a reorganization plan that has shifted from a public policy of pay as you go to a very dangerous policy of go and pay later. Said plan has opened the door to political corruption and degenerated society. In order to cloud the bankruptcy and reorganization issue, the government has been involved in huge misinformation programs that spawn many conspiracy theories, tabloids, and websites, that lead people into chasing rabits thus, creating confusion in order to neutralize opposition. Diversion protects the private banking, insurance, and investment interest involved in the bankruptcy and reorganization of laws that the individual has a vested interested in through social security, insurance, and retirement. In fact and in law there is no vast conspiracy, just pure greed, power and egos. The whole bureaucracy has taken on a life of its own driven by the people's greed. The more the people demand of the government by not taking on their own responsibilities, the more debt and loss of freedoms that will eventually choke all life out of the people who are "subject to" the 14th amendment under a One World Corporate Monolith untouchable by any government. Thomas Jefferson said it will take mankind at least 2,000 years to overthrow this slavery should we become totally locked into it. The people are now witnessing the final takeover under their own hand.

The truth of the matter is, there is in reality no Government in Washington D.C., instead there is a mass bureaucracy floated on debt and credit that is driven by hundreds of associations that are comprised of private parties. Some of these associations are unincorporated thus are not recognized by law as a legal entity. Neither the Constitution of the United States or the common law forbids such associations, but tolerates them. These unincorporated associations operate as private law under the law merchant outside the Separation of Powers Doctrine as enumerated in the Constitution of United States. The Constitution was designed to protect the individual and the right to enter into contracts without Government intervention. These private associations control the bureaucracies that enact administrative laws that are to benefit the members of the associations. All this accomplished by and through contract law that the members have volunteered into. Before the bankruptcy we had a Government of free enterprise (public law) whereby private unincorporated associations could not meddle with the law becase they were not legal entities. Today the government is private enterprise (private law) run by an unincorporated association called public policy. Those public policy laws directly affect the masses that contracted with the association for their own benefit. In other words, you have both of your hands around your neck choking yourself. All you have to do is release your hands. I have met the enemy an it is I. Sad to say, but voting today is nothing more than electing who has the money to buy the election and select what brand of mass confusion, mayhem and lunacy will lead the nation into a communist dictatorship. There is no standard of values or sovereignty of the individual because the law treats a bankrupt peole as outlaws and fictitious "persons".

"If a nation values anthing more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too." -Somerset Maugham, Enlish Novelist and Playwright, 1874-1965.

USING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN ITS CORRECT PREMISE

Lee Brobst

The following article on the District of Columbia was in part taken from Wikipedia that I find as excellent source material. The article is designed to put to sleep the notion that the unincorporated government is a defense against the encroachment of government when in fact and in law the complete opposite is true. Main article: History o[ Washington, D.C. An Algonquian people known as the Nacotchtank inhabited the area around the Anacostia River in present day Washington when the first Europeans arrived in the 17th century; however, Native American people had largely relocated from the area by the early 18th century. Georgetown was chartered by the Province of Maryland on the north bank of the Potomac River in 1751. The town would be included within the new federal territory established nearly 40 years later. The City of Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1749, was also originally included within the District. James Madison explained the need for a federal district on January 23, 1788 in the Federalist No. 43, arguing that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states, in order to provide for its own maintenance and safety. An attack on the Congress at Philadelphia by a mob of angry soldiers, known as the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, had emphasized the need for the government to see to its own security. Therefore, the authority to establish a federal capital was provided in Article One, Section Eight, of the United States Constitution, which permits a "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". The Constitution, however, does not specify a location for the new capital. In what later became known as the Compromise of 1790, Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson came to an agreement that the federal government would assume war debt carried by the states, on the condition that the new national capital would be located in the South. On July 16, 1790, the Residence Act provided for a new permanent capital to be located on the Potomac River, the exact area to be selected by President Washington. As permitted by the U.S. Constitution, the initial shape of the federal district was a square, measuring 10 miles (16 km) on each side, totaling 100 square miles (260 km"). During 1791-92, Andrew Ellicott and several assistants, including Benjamin Banneker, surveyed the border of the District with both Maryland and Virginia, placing boundary stones at every mile point; many of the stones are still standing. A new "federal city" was then constructed on the north bank of the Potomac, to the east of the established settlement at Georgetown. On September 9, 1791, the federal city was named in honor of George Washington and the district was named the Territory of Columbia, Columbia being a poetic name for the United States in use at that time. Congress held its first session in Washington on November 17, 1800. The Organic Act of 1801 officially organized the District of Columbia and placed the entire federal territory, including the cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria under the exclusive control of Congress. Further, the unincorporated territory within the District was organized into two counties: the County of Washington on the north bank of the Potomac, and the County of Alexandria on the south bank. Following this Act, citizens located in the District were no longer considered residents of Maryland or Virginia, thus ending their representation in Congress. On August 24-25, 1814, in a raid known as the Burning of Washington, British forces invaded the capital during the War of 1812, in retaliation for the sacking and burning of York (modern-day Toronto). The Capitol, Treasury, and White House were burned and gutted during the attack. Most government buildings were quickly repaired, but the Capitol, which was at the time largely under construction, would not be completed until 1868. Since 1800, the District's residents have protested their lack of voting representation in Congress. To correct this, various proposals have been offered to return the land ceded to form the District back to Maryland and Virginia. This process is known as retrocession. However, such efforts failed to earn enough support until the 1830s when the District's southern county of Alexandria went into economic decline due to neglect by Congress. Alexandria was also a major market in the American slave trade, and rumors circulated that abolitionists in Congress were attempting to end slavery in the District; such an action would have further depressed Alexandria's economy. Unhappy with Congressional authority over Alexandria, in 1840 the people began to petition for the retrocession of the District's southern territory back to Virginia. The state legislature complied in February 1846, partly because the return of Alexandria provided two additional pro slavery delegates to the Virginia General Assembly. On July 9, 1846, Congress agreed to return all the District's territory south of the Potomac River back to the Commonwealth of Virginia.[Bold large print added] [Not the fault of Wikipedia, but notice the above article does not say anything about returning the slaves with their contractual rights back to the incorporated state of Virginia, only the ceded land back to Virginia. The slaves were considered property by their owners with no personal rights, thus no personal estate under the law of nations or the laws of Virginia because Virginia was considered a slave state. The 14th Amendment in 1868 was an executive order brought under the unincorporated territories of the District that is constitutional under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, thereby evading the issue of whether the 14th amendment was properly ratified. The 14th amendment freed the slaves and gave them personal rights under private international law or the law of nations, then eventually under the law of the states. The 14th amendment also offered the sovereign citizens of the states the same privileges and immunities under private international law that is also known as the Law Merchant. Municipal laws of the District simply do not apply under private international law. It also must be mentioned here that the 14th amendment is also tied into the 16th amendment.] Section 1, 14th Amendment.. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. (Bold emphasis added) The 14th amendment is an executive order (proclamation) Vol. 1 of Presidential Executive Orders, 2 vols. (N.Y.: Books, Inc., 1944—Copyright by Mayor of N.Y. 1944). “[T]he term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ . . . must be construed in the sense in which the term is used in international law as accepted in the United States as well as Europe. * * * The provision of the 14th Amendment alluded to . . . is affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen with respect to citizenship.” Francis Wharton, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws or Private International Law, 3rd ed. (Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Co., 1906), vol. 1, pp. 45-47. Private International Law Defined and Distinguished. "International law, in its widest and most comprehensive sense-including not only questions of right between nations, governed by what has be in appropriately called the law of nations; but also questions arising under what is usually called private international law or the conflict of law's, and concerning the rights of persons within the territory and dominion of one nation, by reason of acts, private or public, done within the dominion, of another nation-is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the Courts of justice, as often as such questions are presented in litigation between man and man, duly submitted to their determination." Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113. 16 S. C. Rep,. 139. Taken from LEADING CASES ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. By John W. Dwyer, LL.M. In his treatise on the “History of Land Titles in Massachusetts”, (1801), James Sullivan, former Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court at pp. 337-338 stated: Personal estate is not fixed to any place or country, and contracts depend on the jus gentium (the general law of nations) for their origin and their expositions, rather than on any municipal regulations of particular countries. It is observed by Justinian, that the law of nations is held in common by all the world; and that all contracts had their origin in those necessities of mankind, which urged them to buying, selling, etc. … As personal contracts are founded in commerce, they cannot rest on the particular laws of one country only; but ought to be the subject of those principles of the general law of nations, which are acknowledged by the world. The laws of the District of Columbia never have or ever will conform to the laws of the states of the Union under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1, thus in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845), the question of federal jurisdiction was once again before the Court. This case involved a contest of the title to real property, with one of the parties claiming a right to the disputed property via a U.S. patent; the lands in question were situated in Mobile, Alabama, adjacent to Mobile Bay. In discussing the subject of federal jurisdiction, the Court held: "We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never, held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed, " 44 U. S., at 221 (1845). [underline emphasis added]. [See also Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 to the Constitution of United States.] The person in the New York case below choose not to create any evidence that would declare that he volunteered to surrender his personal rights by signing documents that would make him subject to a foreign power thus he remained a sovereign citizen of the incorporated state of New York under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1. Today people sign government documents that are contracts and WHAM O!!, they have given up their sovereignty under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 to become member beneficiaries of the public social security trust in “a territory” under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 and wonder where their Constitutional rights went. In June 1957, the government of United States published a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States, Part II. The federal government cannot, by unilateral action on its part acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of the state, Id., at 46.[Bold underline emphasis added] The question becomes what boundaries? The above published work was established 50 + years ago and since that time, the state boundary lines in the states constitutions have disappeared. The federal government is not the blame, it’s the people who unilaterally reach into the government and sign those government documents to become a beneficiary of the government’s public debt. "If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction” New York v. Miln (11 Peters)102; 36 U.S., at 133 (1837) [Bold emphasis added] Notice that it does not say the person “resides” in “a territory” see 14th amendment and O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 US 516, 537 (1933), to the contrary; the person is found in the same territory, i.e., a incorporated association of states of the Union under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 as opposed to “a territory” of unincorporated association of federated states under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 of the Constitution of U.S. Check out your state’s constitution for where it exists today. There are no borders. The condition of state of being today is “a territory” as defined in O’Donoghue above. Congress may legislate directly with respect to the local affairs of a territory or it may transfer that function to a legislature elected by the citizens thereof, Binns v. United States, 194 US 491 (1904). [Are you starting to understand Federal mandates?] [Bold print added] The Constitutional guarantees of private rights are applicable in territories which have been made a part of the United States by congressional action but not in unincorporated territories Downes v. Bidwll, 182 US 244. [Bold underline print added] The status and rank of territorial governments, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Snow v. United States. 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 317, stated: Government territories of the United States belongs primarily to Congress, and secondarily to such agencies as Congress may establish for that purpose. They are mere dependencies of the United States. Their people do not constitute a sovereign power. [Bold underline emphasis print added] Former Chief Justice John Marshall in United States v. Maurice (U.S.) 26 Fed Cas. 1211, stated, at page 1216: “The United States is a government, and consequently a body politic and corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was created by the means which are necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained and established by the American people, and endowed by them with great powers, for important purposes.” Quoted In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 506, 141 N.Y. 479. The American People created the National corporation; the National corporation did not create the people. As the Preamble says: “We the People in Order to form a more perfect Union … .” The Constitution of United States is the master charter that spells out the limited powers of Government. One of those limited powers given to Congress is the creation of Article IV Section 3 cl.1 to deal with incorporating states into the Union. [clause 1] New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The main thrust of the Constitution of United States was the peoples unfettered use of the common law under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1, and Article I Section 10 and the absolute rights under the first 10 Amendments to the Bill of Rights. The Constitution of United States is a common law document, Munn v. Illinois 94 U.S. 113. The author of this article feels that the case below is so important that I have repeated excerpts here. I am a firm believer that the courts are not corrupt, it’s the people that are corrupt by wanting the best of both sides of the law, public and private law and go to court based upon the wrong premise and the judges go ballistic then blame the judges. As the court noted in United States of America v. State of Michigan No. M26-73 C.A. (1979). “Before the filing of the complaint and continuously during the Course of these proceedings, the State of Michigan and certain individually named state officials have acted in derogation of the vested aboriginal and federal rights of the plaintiff Indian tribes. The conflict between the state and tribal fisherman is notorious; scarcely a day goes by without an article appearing in one or more of the state’s major newspapers concerning the controversy. That it is a passionate issue is exemplified by a recent wholly improper attempt to influence this Court through the circulation of petitions amongst sports fishermen which urged that the court rule against the Indians. The circulation of petitions is an action diametrically at odds with the methods of access to the courts mandated by the Federal rules of Civil Procedure. This misguided action gave thousands of people the erroneous impression that constitutional rights are a matter of popular contest. This was a corruption of the concept of the Federal Judicial system. In a democracy, many times people violate Constitutional and Inalienable rights. The United States Courts exist to ensure guaranteed constitutional rights against the TYRANNY OF POPULAR MAJORITIES. ” [Capital letters used in original, underline italics emphasis added]. The court made it very clear that the case was NOT a 14th amendment citizen case. The court also went back 12.000 years and stated that personal rights were the same then as today. The court in essence stated a truism, the law never changes, its your access to the law that is in constant change. Each person can restore the Constitution by stop putting demands on government that are outside the enumerated powers. What was the subject matter of this case? A written treaty agreed to by both the United States Government and the Indian Tribes premised on the United States Constitution. What is the treaty between the people of United States and the Government of United States, the Constitution? The Constitution is a written Charter whereby the people formed an incorporated association under the Common Law that is evidenced by that document that spells out what the duties of Government are. The Constitution does not restrict the individual’s right to contract into an unincorporated association under private international law should they desire. The Constitution must provide you free access to the law of your choice, or the Constitution becomes a dictatorship.

A new IN DEPTH Educational experience in the law to make you think BEFORE YOU ACT based upon the correct premise. Lee Brobst

WATER

It seems to us that we have wasted a lot of time when we could be getting water...if people have a water right and or contract for water should file their case properly in state court where property rights are resolved. For Farmers/Ranchers in Modoc County need to file in Alturas, Siskiyou County Farmers/Ranchers in Yreka and in Klamath County in Klamath Falls. We believe you will be able to keep your water. We need WATER every year. We can't emphasize enough that individuals or several individuals have to do it themselves. Pool your resources together. We have read different homesteaders contacts and the Bureau of Reclamation have to give you water despite ESA. This is a case of common law action of trespass as we described in previous letters to some and in our website: www.orgsites.com/ca/waternow . Your farms are at risk and many business's are at risk.Somebody need to take a look at this remedy...we believe it has a lot of merit. WATER NOW!

Natural Liberty. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of desposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Bl.Comm.125

COURT VICTORY

A stunning court victory based upon Lee Brobst’s real issues of facts surrounding the law at www.truthinlaw.net and beyond that raises serious questions concerning patriot websites. After telephone tutorials and e-mails from Lee Brobst in the preparation of defending myself from a court action filed by the STATE OF MICHIGAN, my friends were telling me about all the dire things that were going to happen to me because of the papers I filed in this matter. You have heard the stories; “the judges are corrupt”, “they do not have oaths”, “they won’t listen to your argument”; or “I’m tired of hearing such arguments, I hereby sentence you”, etc., etc. On the day of the hearing I witnessed a number of defendants, most of who were represented by attorneys, receive fines and some even jail time. My case was the only dismissal that day. My experience with this issue was that the judge, prosecutor, and the entire court administration treated me with utmost respect and courtesy, and made comments that they had never seen papers like the ones I was filing. The whole process after my case was called lasted no more than 1 minute from start to dismissal.

I Gary Hardy, certify that the above statement as to my experience in the court is true correct, complete and not misleading.

After reading on the various websites the venomous attacks on the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the judicial system that is in total contradiction as to what I experienced, one wonders whose side they are on. The Marxists just love those attacks because it serves their best interest in helping to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the very people who are supposedly helping to save the country. My experience show such attacks are based upon ignorance of the facts surrounding the law and must stop.

To get a hard copy of this HISTORIC document, please send a U.S. Postal money order for the sum of $50.00 to Gary Hardy c/o 1399 Braidwood, Memphis 48091 Michigan.

The principles of fact and law in the HISTORIC legal document can be applied to any situation with some modifications. Remember, the law never changes but your access to the law is in constant change.

Gary Van Hardy

RETURN OUR COUNTY BACK TO A CONSTITIONAL GOVERNMENT.

July 23, 2011

Lewie,

As I see it, by the end of the Obama administration, President Obama will have signed so many executive orders as to eliminate Congress on important issues. Those executive orders will become precedent that cannot be overturned by a future president, because Obama was elected as a foreign citizen president; as such, he is not bound by the separation of powers doctrine of the U.S.Constitution. The precedent has already been set and future presidents will not have the power to overturn the fatal damage that has already has been done. Change is what 14th amendment citizens voted for, but the people failed to ask Obama what change was he talking about? Change to a dictatorship is exactly what Obama had in mind when he ran for president. After all, his background training in whatever form you want to call it, whether Communism, Fascism and the likes thereof, had him well prepared for that position as the start of a dictatorship.Seehttp://www. libertyzone. com/Communist-Manifesto Planks.html All executive orders must be published in the Federal Register, then, they become law. Lee

Dose of Reality

The patriot movement, for the lack of a better term, does nothing to prepare people for the future and how to take care of themselves. Instead they have people running around treating symptoms and not causes. Believe me, one way or another, the government will get its compelled performance when you deal with issues of fact in the unincorporated private government. The social security number with its public debt is still attached to those peoples’ estate who deals with issues of fact. In the end, those people will have nothing to live on and will have to resort to living in the streets, panhandling. See http://mises.org/daily/1275 That is the reality of it and not the illusionary world the patriots live in. I personally believe that the people behind those websites have gotten themselves into trouble with the various governments because their theories did not work for themselves resulting in huge penalties and interest owed in taxes. They knew they couldn’t go out in the work place and get a job, because the government would take most of what they made. In order to circumvent that problem, they started up those websites to make a living because the government couldn’t tax them. These people know the garbage they push doesn’t work, and they refuse to change. Why should they, there is a sucker born every minute as P.T. Barnum used to say. Then there is the BIG FAT LIE the clueless idiots are pushing that it’s the PUBLIC corporate United States that is destroying the nation. The PUBLIC corporate United States under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 is incapable of destroying the nation. The truth of the matter is in fact and in law that it is the PRIVATE unincorporated association under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 of the U.S. Constitution that is destroying 14th amendment citizens. If what they say is true, there are over 27,000 U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are absolutely wrong; probably 3 million state court decisions that are absolutely wrong; 1 million federal district court and federal circuit court decisions that are wrong. Our whole government structure is wrong. The ancient laws of the past are wrong. It’s pure insanity to think that way, but then that is the patriot movement that is being manipulated by a few insiders. There is well established law that proves that statement. What the government is doing is giving the so called patriots enough rope to hang themselves by letting the penalty and interest build, and then the government will lower the boom and reduce those people to nothing but an existence along with constant harassment. To the government, the patriot community is a growth industry, rightly so, and it amazes me that people can’t see what is going on. The only way a person is going to be absolutely free of the almost here dictatorship is to be free of 14th amendment citizenship along with being a beneficiary to the public debt which is difficult to achieve. Nobody can do it for you, you must learn the law and procedure yourself. The final test of being free is the person must have a piece of land that is away from the big cities, that you can grow food upon, in addition to providing housing. That landed real property must be free of all debts, compelled performance, and all taxes, and that can only be accomplished with issues of the “law” under the incorporated side of government;not issues of fact under the unincorporated side of government. When that is accomplished, that person will have access to their allodial land title.2 If a person cannot lay claim to his or her allodial land title, which they must have in order to be free, they have nothing but a feudal rent a life 3 in performance to local, state, and federal governments that are bankrupt, that is becoming more oppressive every day. Everything, and I do mean everything, regardless of how a person views it boils down to, WHO EVER CONTROLS THE LAND CONTROLS THE PEOPLE See http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/s-510-is-hissing-in-the-grass/ No ifs ands or buts. Food is going to be the future gold. This is a little off the subject, but you are going to see the day when all those pristine lawns are going to be plowed up to plant food crops. Then there is the question whether the food is going to be worth anything after years of dumping very toxic chemicalson the land just so we can satisfy our illusions of something soothing to the eye. No wonder sickness has turned into a growth industry to satisfy select corporations such as the pharmaceutical and chemical corporations that are part of the one world quasi corporate monolith. What the people are doing to themselves is absolute insanity.Everywhere one looks on the internet one finds the BIG FAT LIE that is getting totally out of hand and must be challenged. These people are not solving anything; instead they are creating the environment for a national sales tax that will be in addition to the income tax, just like they have in Great Britain. If the gurus on the internet cannot defeat income taxes, how can they defeat a national sales tax? There are so many issues that must be solved in an effort to be free however, under the present environment of the clueless idiot patriot website community, that effort is impossible to be accomplished.. A very serious question a person must ask him/her self is what you are going to do when you can’t take care of yourself, for whatever reason, when you are spending all your money defending yourself from the unincorporated association called government as noted above. There is only one answer, and that is an Article III judgment based upon issues of “law” as it relates directly to the U.S. Constitution that can be used against every intrusion of government, local, state, and federal. In other words, that decision becomes res judicata, and that person is now a sovereign citizen. In my studies, I have found that there is only going to be about 3% of the people that are going to be free sovereigns. I used to scoff at that 3% however, experience has shown me that percentage has merit. Sometimes I question if it’s not lower than that. President Obama made the statement in his “State of the Union Address” on Wednesday, January 27, 2010, that if Congress doesn’t give him what he wants, that he, Obama will issue Executive Orders to accomplish his goals. There you have it. The president is setting up a dictatorship based upon the fact that the American people as 14th amendment citizens have created such enormous debt, both public and private, that is either directly or indirectly, tied into the public trust, or if you will, the private unincorporated association where you do not have absolute title to your estate. See http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative- politics/liberty/social-engineering-bill-in-senate-will-force-you-into-city/? eiid&rmid=2010_09_10_PLA&rrid=238504900 and http://www.personalliberty. com/conservative-politics/free-exercise-of-industry-and-its-fruits/ Then there is the issue that President Obama was not born a citizen of the United States. The truth of the matter, there is no proof that he was born in the United States, therefore, he is not President of the corporate United States of America, nor did he give a “State of the Union Address” on January 27, 2010. His speech was given as the soon to be dictator of the United States. The speech is to be considered a “State of the Federation Address” that 14th amendment citizens as members of a private unincorporated association under private international law have voted to put him in as president of their private debtor/creditor association. Said association operates outside the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution of United States. That very separation of powers doctrine that is the heart and soul of the corporate United States; and not the absolute garbage the patriots are pushing that the corporate United States is the enemy. Those so called patriots are absolutely clueless as to what is going on. Is it any wonder that there has never been any court wins based upon issues of law that is based upon the direct application of the U.S. Constitution, except for one case. As I see it, by the end of the Obama administration, President Obama will have signed so many executive orders as to eliminate Congress on important issues. Those executive orders will become precedent that cannot be overturned by a future president, because Obama was elected as a foreign citizen president; as such, he is not bound by the separation of powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution. The precedent has already been set and future presidents will not have the power to overturn the fatal damage that has already has been done. Change is what 14th amendment citizens voted for, but the people failed to ask Obama what change was he talking about? Change to a dictatorship is exactly what Obama had in mind when he ran for president. After all, his background training in whatever form you want to call it, whether Communism, Fascism and the likes thereof, had him well prepared for that position as the start of a dictatorship.See http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html All executive orders must be published in the Federal Register, then, they become law. The nation of 14th amendment citizens is in the final stages of the bankruptcy where there is not going to be any government, only computer programs that will direct their subjects how and where to perform. Failure to perform will feed those 14th amendment citizens into the cattle chute that the only question asked, are you going to perform? If not, off to the internment camps you go that are scattered all over the country. Due process notwithstanding. In other words, under a computerized dictatorship, there is no separation of powers; the dictator becomes the judge, jury, and the executer, the very definition of a dictatorship. If you think it can’t happen here you had better open your eyes, and ears, because it’s already here right out of Obama’s own mouth on January 27, 2010 and now with the National Health Care Act of March 23, 2010. See http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx08_brady/pr_100728_hc_chart.html. The only way out of such government tyranny is to trash the status of the 14th amendment and revoke the power behind the social security number, along with being a beneficiary to the public debt, and that includes destroying checking accounts and credit cards. The question arises, are you ready to take that giant step to take care of yourself without the help of government? The remedy is there however, you will never find it on the internet from people who are clueless, and I do mean clueless as to what United States of America and the Constitution is all about, simply because they do not know the difference between private and public law. I hope this gives you an insight as to what you are facing. It is something you must take very seriously. I have seen people being consumed by the thousands, the latest being Ed and Elaine Brown, Peter Hendrickson, Lindsey Springer, and the list will grow to include future names that already have or will get themselves involved way over their heads fighting government by following bad advice or misinterpreting what they think is law. Their failings will be caused by the fact that they do not know the difference between private and public law. How many patriot websites tell you the income tax runs directly through the Social Security Act of August 1935, and not directly through the Internal Revenue Code? See Social Security Act Title VIII.Direct application of the IRC is for those who have corporate stock and the likes thereof. The tax is on unearned income and rightfully so. See Social Security letter at end of article. " The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits" Great Falls MFG v Attorney General 124 US 581. (1888) Quoted in Ashwander v. T.V.A. 297 US 288, 348, 349. (1936). Those people in prison can release themselves any time they are ready however, they must rid themselves of all their illusions the way they think things are, or the way they think things should be. It will not be an easy learning process, especially after they have brained washed themselves with the absolute and complete garbage they have instilled in their minds See The Death Of Free Will HJR 192 created the public trust whereby all of the peoples’ religious beliefs are mixed up in the law that the courts term the spirit of the law. The minute you signed any government form with your social security number, you have exercised your contract rights to bring a third party into your life. Said contract rights are launched from the state level whereby you have pledged your entire estate to the public charitable trust. That said trust is an unincorporated association that operates outside the corporate United States and its Constitution with its delegation of powers. The Social Security Administration is located in Baltimore Maryland, and not Washington D.C. With that in mind, how can the corporate United States be the enemy of the people? The answer, it’s impossible. The clueless idiots behind those patriot websites take bits and pieces of the law that they know nothing about, and throw those bits and pieces into a hodge-podge conglomeration of public and private law that is impossible for success. All this is evidenced by the fact that they quote court decisions and statutes that are totally out of context that are nothing more than disconnected ramblings; that have no flow to anything in the law but the illusions of their mind of the way they think things are, or the way they think things should be. The real test is, try and apply that website garbage in the courts and see what happens. When the premise iswrong, everything is wrong. Their excuse is the courts are corrupt or the Constitution is a bunch of garbage. Is it any wonder the judges go ballistic and apply sanctions and fines and even prison terms with the so called patriot garbage that is poured into the courts? How can you sue yourself? What follows is an example. From the Social Security Act of August, 1935 to wit : TITLE XI- GENERAL PROVISIONS DEFINITIONS SECTION 1101. (a) When used in this Act- (1) The term State (except when used in section 531) includes Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. (2) The term United States when used in a [geographical sense means the States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. Geographical sense; as opposed to a territorial sense]. Bold underline added. (3) The term person means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a corporation. (4) The term corporation includes associations, joint-stock companies, and insurance companies. (5) The term shareholder includes a member in an association, joint- stock company, or insurance company. (6) The term employee includes an officer of a corporation. Title 15 USC Trade and Commerce, Chap. 41, Section 1602 in part to wit: [bold emphasis added. There is no enacting clause.] (c) The term ''organization'' means a corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, trust, estate, partnership, cooperative, or association. TO BE CONTINUED.....

HOW MUCH WILL WE ENDURE?

TTHOSE WHO PROFESS TO FAVOR FREEDOM, AND YET DEPRECATE AGITATION, ARE MEN WHO WANT CROPS WITHOUT PLOWING UP THE GROUND ~

~They want rain without thunder and lightning They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters ~This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle ~ Power concedes nothing without a demand ~ It never did, and it never will ~ Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of infustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both ~ ~ The limits of tyrants are precribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress ~

FREDERICK DOUGLASS April 4, 1857

SECOND AMENDMENT WIN

On October 16 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down an 84-page decision that clearly stated that the Second Amendment declaration that the"People's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says-the right of individual Americans. This case U.S. v. Emerson, "the most important and favorable Second Amendment judicial decision in American history."

HOME LAND SECURITY ?

Judging, from reading the newspaper, there seems to be a diversity of opinions as to just what Home Land Security means. Some are relieved, now they are protected. Some are wary the government just became closer to a Nazi like condition with total control. Let us take a look at events from the past so as to understand the present.

The "Union of States", (the United States of America) begins association under the mastercharter "The Constitution for the United States". The Master Charter incorporates an association of states into the Union through the provisions of Article IV, section 3, clause 1. The Constitution also incorporated by reference the Articles of Confederation and announces the unincorporated powers of Congress over other property in Article IV sect. 3, cl.1 are defined in reality by physical borders as noted in you state's early constitution. For instance, the original constitutions of the 50 states under Article IV Sect. 3, cl. 1 -- the first order of business describes the physical borders of where in reality the state exists that is contrary to Article IV, Sect. 3, cl. 2 as noted:

The Supreme Court ruling on the property clause of Article IV, Sect. 3, cl. 2 stated:

Literally, the word "territory", as used, signifies property, since the language is not "territory or property", but "territory or other property." There arises and evident difference between the words "the territory" and "a territory" of the United States. The former merely designates a particular part or parts of the earth's surface-the imperially extensive holdings of the Nation; the latter is a governmental subdivision which happened to be called a "territory", but which quite as well could have been called a "colony" ... "province" ..."A territory, under the Constitution and laws of United States is an inchoate state", O'Donaghue v. United States, 289 US 516 (1933). (Italics in original)

Note: an inchoate state is an incomplete state---it has no charter of incorporation, hence not borders defined as it possess no physical reality (existing as a political subdivision of the mind which is considered other property of the United States). Check out your state's constitution for where it exists today. There are not borders. The condition of state of being today is "aterritory" as defined in O'Donoghue above.

Congress may legislate directly with respect to the local affairs of a territory or it may transfer that function to legislature elected by the citizens there of, Binns v. United States,194 US 491 (1904). Are you starting to understand Federal mandates?

The Constitution guarantees of private rights are applicable in territories which have been made a part of the United States by congressional action but not in unincorporated territories Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244.

The reason for the above is to demonstrate that there are two jurisdictions announced by the Constitution, incorporated and unincorporated, either in which you may exist. Both are constitutional. In one you control yourself with full responsibility for your actions protected by the Bill of Rights in its absolute form; in the other you demand limited liability for your actions but controlled by Congress without the Bill of Rights, only civil rights that are only relative to the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

You may be asking yourself, how did I arrive in "a territory" subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The answer is, you did it yourself. Hint ... It has to do with payment of debt,debtors,creditors, Scottish law,charitable trusts, communes, private Roman law, international law, the money/credit system, and protecting the land from an ENEMY. Do you want to know more? What and where is the Home Land? From whom does it need protection? Who is the enemy? Why are there executive orders since the 1930's stating we have been in continuing state of war/emergency? Who are the conspirators? What can I do??

THE SPIRIT AND TRUE MEANING?

"Public Policy" is the private law of the commune. Public policy, color of law, private Roman law, the United States Code, you state's compiled laws are not law, only prima facie evidence of law. What the above represent are the publics mental picture of what is, a requirement to support the publics illusion of how things are. The court identifies this condition as the "Spirit and True Meaning of the Constitution" as opposed to the letter of strict meaning of the Constitution. The condition evolves similar to what happens in so-called religions where the people sitting in the pews are exposed to tidbits of information. These sound bites do no satisfy most to become comfortable, in the mind, an invention takes place, In other words, the people invent their understanding of how things work and why they work the way they do. These inventions of the mind becomes public policy of the masses. Politicians turn these illusions into power and economic base. It is the mental picture of how things work to support the illusions that provide comfort for the masses. If most people were exposed to the official dogma of teir church they would not recognize it as their church. The same goes for how Government works. It is why so many think there is a grand conspiracy at the highest levels of government. A good example of this is the second amendment. The Constitution states what it states, but Government has enacted many controls that seem opposed to the strict meaning. Remember the two jurisdictions? In the incorporated state the letter or strict meaning is applied; in the unincorporated state condition (mental/governmental subdivision/property) public policy rules.

Once again how did I get into the unincorporated state? Previous to 1933 and the emergency in agriculture and banking, the courts operated under the presumption that all people were acting privately with two party contracts paying their debts with Standard lawful money of account of the United States with full access to the common law of Article I Section 10 and absolute ownership as opposed to relative ownership of land.

Because of the emergency, Congress forbade the people to pay debts in law. Despite one's belief nobody in United States has paid a debt since June 5, 1933. All debts have been "discharged", not in law but in equity with H.J.R. 192. (See attached at end) The people caused the emergency because of unwarranted foreign speculation (trying to make money instead of producing money). The result was that the president issued executive orders under the authority conferred by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 (commonly known as "trading with the enemies Act"). Congress responded and amended the Act at Title 12 USC 95 (a): "...so as to provide that during any period of national emergency declared by the president, he might "investigate, regulate, or prohibit" by means of licenses or otherwise, 'any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by ......., any person....within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. Note: The emergency is reannounced every two years...the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc.

Remember your history, the 14th Amendment was already in place announcing a new class of persons "subject to" the Jurisdiction of the United States. This new class of persons reside, having privileges and immunities as opposed to the in the incorporated states with property rights and the strict meaning of the Bill of rights protecting life, liberty and property. [email protected]

"OUR LETTER TO YOU"

Helen and I thought we needed to write a letter to friends and various people in important places here in this greater Klamath, Modoc and Siskiyou Counties. We are concerned about the welfare of our small towns, Agriculture, industry and people in general. We have lived in this community for many years and have been in Agriculture directly or indirectly for those years. It is well known we are having great problems in keeping the community or a somewhat even keel. Prices are very poor on most all commodities. Is it changing times, ESA, EPA, NAFTA, GATT or some other entity out of the alphabet? Are these problems coming from the Federal government, state governments, Senators, Congressmen, environmental groups or from a list of bureaucrats? We are sure those are lot of the problems. However, our problems started long time ago.

1781---Articles of Confederation established as unincorportated association of States, The people did not incorporate the Articles of Confederation. And "unincorporated association" is merely a body of individuals acting together, without a corporate charter. Commerce and Taxation were under control of States in the Confederation. Hard Coin established substantive common law based on allodial land titles and its people are citizens of the several States. The Articles of Confederation states that the Confederation is to be a perpetual Union and is why Article VI to the Constitution was written.

1789---Articles of Confederation were not abolished but incorporated into the Constitution as evidenced by Article VI to the Constitution as follows: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. The Preamble to the Constitution of United States reads in part: "We the People...in order to form a more perfect Union...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", incorporate the States into the Union. "We the People ... in Order to form a more perfect Union ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", incorporate the Federal Government into 10 square mile area in Washington D.C. Posterity---All the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest generation. "Incorporate" means to combine together so as to form one harmonious or consistent whole; to mix or blend thoroughtly together. We can go into more detail, but we don't think it is necessary at this time.

To save our country we need to "RETURN TO A REPUBLIC".

A DOSE REALITY OF 2010

A DOSE OF REALITY FOR THE ILLUSIONAL WHO RESIDE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHO DEMAND THE LETTER AND STRICT MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION. I have received e-mails from people that are beginners at trying to be free from the ever increasing government intrusion into their lives that do not begin to comprehend what they are involved with. I have been at this game for more than four decades and I can tell you that it is impossible to defeat the government while being a 14th amendment citizen and that includes being eligible for the government benefits. The reason being 14th amendment citizens are confined to legislative courts enforcing administrative law under the U.S. Constitution because they are bankrupt because of HJR 192 in 1933. There are hundreds if not thousands of websites that lead people to believe otherwise that government can be defeated by following their advice. The problem that arises, those people are not defeating government on issues of law in Article III courts, but on issues of fact as outlined below. I understand that there are some people that have their heart in the right place but, in dealing with the law it’s not a case of the heart being in the right place; it’s a matter of having your mind focused on the difference between private and public law, otherwise there is nothing that does anybody anything but just more confusion. The powers that be love the confusion, the more the better. Not only are those people behind all those websites clueless, their ramblings say nothing that are connected to anything. One thing for certain, they are getting a lot of people in trouble that are following such garbage. See http://www.justice. gov/tax/txdv09190.htm, and http://www.justice.gov/tax/WAble_Complaint.pdf . Unfortunately, people want a quick easy fix, thus becoming victims of their own illusions. The answer to being free is not simple and easy, it’s a very complicated learning and application process that I find most people are not prepared for, nor do they want to prepare themselves for the process. Their attitude, it sounds good, and looks good, so they get in line by the hundreds to pay a scam artist, $1000, to file a UCC 1 form that is meant for financial institutions, and not for citizens, but still the unsuspecting beg to fill in the blanks that make those clueless full of absolute garbage websites so appealing? Then there is the problem that those who are filling out the blanks with their right hand, have their left out for government benefits. Those websites are dealing with issues of fact that offer no solutions under the unincorporated association or private side of government; and not issues of “law” under the incorporated public side of government. The issues must be of “law” that deals directly with the U.S. Constitution with its Article III courts. Anything short of that means that person will never be free, and the consequences will be constant battles for the rest of your life with, local government that is broke, state government that is broke, and federal 1 government that is broke that will be consuming all your time and resources. That time and resources must be used in preparing for the future when you can’t work, that is, if a person wants to become a sovereign citizen and not depend on the government. Even then, the people who are beneficiaries of the public debt must take notice that the government is providing less and less benefits. See Lynch v US In other words, the government wants to write people off when they hit 65 years of age. See Retirement Alert:The Government Has Plans for Your 401(k) and IRA and Top Republican: Raise Social Security's retirement age to 70 In simple terms, they want you to die. REALITY

PLIGHT OF THE LAND

RETURN TO A REPUBLIC

A TERRITORY VERSUS THE TERRITORY1

The Supreme Court ruling on the property clause of Art. IV. Sect. 3, cl.2 stated: Literally, the word “territory”, as used, signifies property, since the language is not “territory or property”, but “territory or other property.” There arises and evident difference between the words “the territory” and “a territory” of the United States. The former merely designates a particular part or parts of the earth’s surface-the imperially extensive holdings of the Nation; the latter is a governmental subdivision which happened to be called a “territory” but which quite as well could have been called a “colony” . . . “province”. . . “A territory, under the Constitution and laws of United States is an inchoate state’, quoting Ex parte Morgan D.C. 20 Fed 298, 305. O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 US 516 (1933). (Italics in original) The. An article which particularizes the subject spoken of. “Grammatical niceties should not be resorted to without necessity; but it would be extending liberality to an unwarrantable length to confound the articles ‘a’ and ‘the’. The most unlettered persons understand that ‘a’ is indefinite, but ‘the’ refers to a certain object.” Black’s Law Dict. 5th ed. Note: an inchoate state is an incomplete state - - - it has no charter of incorporation, hence no borders defined as it possess no physical reality existing as a governmental subdivision which is considered other property of the United States in the spirit of the law under Art. IV Sec. 3 cl.2. According to Black’s Law Dict. 5th ed., a “governmental subdivision is an agency created to carry out a governmental purpose or function. See also Administrative agency; governmental agency.” It is a well established principle of law that the federal “legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears Caha v. United States 152 US 211, 215 (1894); American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co. 213 US 347 (1909);United States v. Bowman 260 US 94, 97 (1922); Blackmer v. United States 284 US 421, 437 (1932). Take note the Court stated: “U.S citizens living abroad are not questions of international law, but of municipal law”; Foley Bros. v. Filardo 336 US 281, 285 (1949); United States v. Spelar 338 US 217, 222, (1949); and United States v. First National City Bank 321 F. 2d 14, 23, 2d Cir., (1963). All these cases deal with “the territory” of United States. These decisions were rendered where there was evidence of a contract, corporate charter, or municipal law that was the subject matter of the cases. In other words, public policy was not involved in those contracts and municipal law. The terms and conditions were spelled out on the documents in a one on one basis. The Court also noted in American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co that territorial law is only prima facie evidence of law. In other words, all territorial law is voluntary subject to a higher form of evidence to the contrary. A person must be aware that most of the following federal appellate courts decisions fall within “a territorial” jurisdiction. see McKeal v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d "582, 589 (9th Cir., 1983) (holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as territorial); Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir., 1964) (holding the Federal Torts Claims Act as territorial); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir., 1975) (holding federal wiretap laws as territorial); Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir., 1978); Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir., 1984) (holding federal age discrimination laws as territorial); Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir., 1984) (holding same as Cleary, supra): United States v. Mitchell, 553 F. 2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir., 1977) (holding marine mammals protection act as territorial): Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley. Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir., 1985) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir., 1959) (holding Railway Labor Act as territorial); Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir., 1984) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Commodities Futures Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487,493 (D.C.C ir., 1984) (holding commission's subpoena power under federal law as territorial): Reyes v. Secretary of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910,. 915 (D.C Cir., 1973) (holding administration of Social Security Act as territorial); and Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y., 1967) (holding securities act as territorial). [Bold emphasis added] There are no physical charters or contracts registered with the secretary of state’s office. Also there are no municipal laws involved in “a territorial” jurisdiction, only a presumption under the Erie RR v. Tompkins 304 US 64 doctrine that a person is subject to diversity of citizenship. Diversity exists when a person resides in one state subject to the jurisdiction of another state. In other words, a person lives in say California, but has volunteered to join a social security trust. That trust is an unincorporated association of federated states or inchoate states or state in “a territory” under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. Said situation is also called a “conflict of law” between Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 (“a territory”) and Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1. (“the territory”) In other words, a conflict of law exists because of diversity. If a “person” wants their sovereignty along with its Constitutional Rights and not civil rights, all that a person has to do is create the evidence in law to destroy the social security trust that that “person” is a member thereof. It’s not easy to accomplish, it takes a lot of dedicated learning, but then anything worthwhile is not easy. “A territorial” jurisdiction falls under private international law where unilateral contracts are the rule as opposed to; “the territorial” law of bilateral contracts (Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1) that is the rule of law. The Social Security Act is the target of this writing because social security is an unincorporated association that is not a part of the municipal law of the United States or its headquarters would not be in Baltimore Maryland. The Social Security Administration comes under private international law and not municipal law therefore, within “a territorial” jurisdiction. i.e., Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, and the (J)udicial (p)ower of amendment 11. The Verlinden case is a good example of how not to mix case law as evidenced above such as decisions describing “the territory” jurisdiction with decisions describing “a territory”. In Verlinden v. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 491 (1983), the court discussed the distinction between “jurisdictional statutes” and “the federal law under which an action arises for (j)udical (P)ower for Art. III purposes.” The Court recognized that pure jurisdictional statutes which seek to do nothing more than grant jurisdiction over a particular class of cases cannot support Art. III “arising under” jurisdiction. Particular class of cases meaning members of the social security trust, an unincorporated association. The words “arising under … laws of the United States” have chiefly been construed in cases involving not Article III directly, but the statutory grant of federal question jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and its predecessors, which is cast in the same language. It is universally acknowledged, however, that the statutory grant does not exhaust the constitutional power, Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 379 n.51 (1959); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 515 (1969); see National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 613-14 (1949) (Rutledge, J., concurring); Mishkin supra, at 160-63; Note on the effect of the Statutory Adoption of the Constitutional Language, Hart & Wechsler, supra, at 870; Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3562 (1975). From Article III –Arising Under Jurisdiction 76 L.Ed 2d 831. It should be remembered when raising or defending against the assertion that a particular action is not within the scope of the "arising under" clause of Article III § 2, clause 1 that the question is not whether the "arising under" clause authorizes the action to be brought in the federal courts, but whether Congress is authorized by that clause to allow by statute for such a claim to be brought there. This distinction is particularly important when a suit is brought under the authority of the general federal question jurisdictional statute (28 USCS § 1331), since the jurisdiction provided by § 1331 is narrower than the jurisdiction Congress is empowered to give by the "arising under" clause. In Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria 76 L Ed 2d 81; 461 U.S. 480, 491 (1983), the court made note that the Court of Appeals decision it reversed concerning the scope of the "arising under" clause relied heavily on decisions construing § 1331, placing particular emphasis on the so called "well-pleaded complaint" rule, which provides for purposes of statutory "arising under" jurisdiction, that the federal question must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint and may not enter in anticipation of a defense. According to the Supreme Court, “the reliance on those decisions was misplaced. Thus, the case is a good example of the caution one should use in making sure that the cases being relied upon to answer jurisdictional questions are not discussing statutory jurisdiction when the question concerns Article III jurisdiction, or vice versa.” The reason given for this distinction is that there exists policy consideration i.e., an unincorporated association under Erie RR underlying the purpose of the jurisdictional statute that limit its application and which do not enter into the picture when construing the constitutional authorization for statutory federal question jurisdiction.” In other words, 14th amendment “persons” come within the preview of “a territorial” jurisdiction under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 that is governed by Article 1 legislative courts with its decisions based upon a public trust. Court decisions based upon a public trust cannot be used in a case that involves cases where the subject matter of the case involves a written contract, physical charter or municipal law or direct constitutional issues that involves Article III courts. The same is true in the reverse. Article III decisions cannot be used in cases involving the public trust. In other words, Article I legislative courts espouse rules and regulations that encompasses public policy under Erie RR v. Tompkins 304 US 64. Article I courts have jurisdiction over “citizen persons” of the unincorporated association under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, and Article I Sec. 8 cls. 3 and 9 to the Constitution to wit: 3. To regulate Commerce … among the several States … . [Bold emphasis added: 9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court, Are you beginning to see why the courts react like they do to the Gobbledegook that is entered into the courts. As noted in Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, there is no charter of incorporation by HJR 192 of the newly created several federal states and just what its duties are, i.e., its intents and purposes; instead there is a resulting or implied (charitable) trust is formed by operation of law.2 In other words, Congress created the conditions for a resulting or implied trust with HJR 192. Under HJR 192, and Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, public policy determined there is no separation of powers doctrine thus the Union of several states is nonexistent; instead there is a federation of inchoate states under private international law3 termed “a territory”. The courts take judicial notice of HJR 192, and the above Erie RR, and O’Donoghue cases and public policies view of the several states as a federation of states under the Constitution. “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of States, or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between the federal and state governments for the ‘protection’ of individuals.” New York v. U.S.,505 U.S. 144. (1992) When it comes to 14th amendment “persons”, there is a presumption that diversity of citizenship exists because that person is a beneficiary of the social security trust, thus “subject to” Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 to create a “conflict of law”. In other words, a “person” is straddling the fence and must make a decision with evidence which law that person is subject to. Silence is consent under private international law, i.e., Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 “persons” reside in “a territory” thus have no standing to quote the above New York v. U.S. case. The United States has no territorial jurisdiction over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the states in the American Union. The question becomes, what territorial jurisdiction are we talking about? When it comes to agencies of the United States government as mentioned above, there is only one territory and that is “a territory” of Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. There are no states with boundary lines that are comprised of members of a private unincorporated association of 14th amendment “persons” that are beneficiaries to the social security charitable trust. In other words, they are members of the several inchoate states as noted in O’Donoghue that have no definitive borders as has the American Union of states under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1.

Lee Brobst

Contact: www.orgsites.com/ca/waternow

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Please take note: When it comes to public policy UNDER ARTICLE IV SECTION 3 CL.2 WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, WITH THE DIFFERENT LAW FORUMS SUCH AS THE COMMON LAW, ADMIRALTY-MARITIME, CIVIL LAW, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE LAW OF TRUSTS, LAW AS OPPOSED TO EQUITY HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED AND ARE NOW TREATED AS ONE AND THE SAME. THIS IS WHY IT IS SO DIFFICULT IN NOT ONLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS HAPPENING TO AMERICA BUT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT ISPUTTING IT ON PAPER. YOU THE READER, WILL NOTICE THAT I KEEP REPEATING ISSUES BECAUSE I WANT THE READER TO VIEW THE ISSUES OF LAW IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT HOPING THE READER WILL FIND A NITCH IN UNDERSTANDING. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM I HAVE IS DE-PROGRAMING PEOPLE FROM BAD MISINFORMATION. 2 Operation of law. This term expresses the manner in which rights, and sometimes liabilities, devolve upon a person by the mere application to the particular transaction of the established rules of law, without the act or co-operation of the party himself. Black’s Law Dict. 5th ed. 3 A State of the United States is not a "state" under international law since by its constitutional status it does not have capacity to conduct foreign relations. United States alone, not any of its constituent States, enjoys international sovereignty and nationhood. "In respect of our foreign relations generally, state lines disappear. As to such purposes the State does not exist." United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, (1937). B/>