Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
Pin It

Recently, a seemingly distinguished person effectively dismissed the idea that the Federal District of Washington, District of Colombia, is not in fact part of these independent but united States of America … and while it would seem an easy question to answer concisely and lay to rest, such matters of law and legalese are never quite so simple in reality.

As my answer, even working largely from memory, has turned into nearly six thousand words, I have included the very short version of my answer in the opening phases with other observations, comments and references throughout the rest of the article. The rest of the article looks at the corresponding perversion and combination of the economic and legal systems and some of how it relates to the lack of liberty and freedom today.

Washington, District of Colombia is in fact THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the independent but united States of America are treated as foreign governments to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA under the full and complete jurisdiction of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and those who have used the US Citizen checkbox, those who have signed documents with their name printed therein in all capital letters without including their signature in a box (thus making it separate and not a part of the contract in accordance with contract law) or otherwise reserving their individual rights to their corporate personhood … and any other of a virtually endless string of tripwires and booby traps that have been carefully put in place over the course of time, the States and the Flesh and Blood Human Beings have all put themselves as Federal Citizens … or Citizens of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or Citizens, effectively under the Jurisdiction of Washington DC, regardless of their actual domicile or the fact that they would previously … prior to the organic act of 1871, been quantified as denizens of an individual republic, commonwealth and/or state within our confederation … within our “Representative Constitutional Republic” and the very concept of a US Citizen or a Federal Citizen was wholly unknown as such an entity never existed prior to that.

Ostensibly this was only implemented to grant full rights of citizenship to the recently freed slaves, though there are ample cases throughout history wherein this has been further perverted and “interpreted” into an omniscient federal power, dwarfed only by the perversion and interpretation of the Commerce Clause, wherein we are all regulated under the Uniform Commercial Code (Based on Maritime Law) as by the very act of existence, we have a direct impact on Interstate Commerce

Am I the only one in the US who questioned, even as a kid, why the State Department was the one in charge of Notary Publics when the NP is merely an extension of the Civil Authority of the individual States?) (For a quick example, see the top of the Application form for a US Passport where it asks if you are indeed a US Citizen … not A citizen of the State wherein you have your domicile)

Furthermore, I am at something of a disadvantage as I recently lost the vast majority of my library and work when I lost my home in a typhoon, and what little I do have left is on a hard drive I cannot access until I can get a new desktop … though I will note what I can from memory and what scant material I do currently have available.

Franklin once noted, that allowing people of Title into public office was never a good idea … in this case, we know he was referring to attorneys. We know this because he further iterated that once we allowed the lawyers to make the laws, they would become so convoluted that only attorneys or legal counsel would be capable of understanding the law.

Tragically it would seem, we did not listen, and each year we, the flesh and blood human beings (as opposed to people) cheer our “representative” and illustrious dear leaders on as they seek to continually enact new laws, despite their current voluminous ability to enslave and oppress we the people. (Yes, I love my country but I loathe the bloated and inefficient, centralized federal system … and no, that does not make me a neo-nazi or a neo-confederate despite what some here would claim)

For the record, I have included some faith and religion as well, though for matters that should be readily obvious in the correlation of studying, seeking out in a philosophical manner, the underlying truth … which is equally challenging and strikingly similar in both matters of law and personal faith … as I hope you will come to see.

In matters of law, much the same as in matters of faith, great care must be taken to interpret the law properly, though as any Attorney would recognize, the law can be quite literally “interpreted” to support virtually any cause or case.

(ERROR FUCATUS NUDA VERITATE IN MULTIS. EST PROBABILIOR; ET SAZEPENUMERO RATIONIBUS VINCIT VERITATEM ERROR. Error artfully disguised [or colored] is, in many instances, more probable than naked truth; and frequently error overwhelms truth by [its show of] reasons. 2 Coke, 73.)

In much the same way as many religious institutions and organizations of men seek to interpret the Bible and/or other faith-based writings, and utilize their personal interpretations to declare tenets or dogma … which is so often the case, in direct contradistinction to the actual faith itself, it is readily “proven” using selective, and occasionally even well-intended “interpretation”.

In matters of faith, I take great comfort in the presence of God whom I recognize to be very real. However, I am not an overly religious person as I do not seek to follow the teachings of men, but rather, through an understanding of the truth, come to discover everlasting life. When the Christ returns, he will return as judge, not as our savior or Messiah as he has already fulfilled that role … when the Christ returns, he will return to judge us in accordance with the will of God, not even his own will, but the will of God … and I really cannot imagine standing in front of my creator and saying “Well … you see … I thought … but the preacher said … or the pope said … or any other religious leader leading the devout followers of a man-made religious institution teaching dogma or tenets.

This is relevant here, because despite my personal prejudice, I tend to make the same efforts in my research into the law, as I believe that it is indeed the “fabric” of society in our present corporeal realm as the Christ is the fabric of a more faith-based society that we will only truly begin to discover in the rule of the Christ.

We can see both in Job and in Peter that Satan is the ruler of this world … in Job we see that Satan was out walking in “his realm” when he spotted Job, and given the descriptions of Job, it should be noted that he was a flesh and blood human being same as our corporeal selves … and further along in the book of Peter, before the infamous kiss of Judas, we know that the Christ said that “The ruler of this world has come to gather me” … again, indicating not that God was coming down to save the Christ, but that Satan was coming to put him to corporeal and physical death.

I also see a rather twisted irony in the fact that both demons and unwarranted “law enforcement” intrusions must both be “invited” inside … succumbing willfully to their jurisdiction … though in the case of law, the pitfalls are so many that it is virtually impossible not to succumb to federal jurisdiction under the fourteenth amendment wherein we waiver all of our God-given and constitutionally protected rights and allow ourselves to be limited to “enjoying certain privileges” which must be contracted through the federal system.

The bottom line is that both law and the original texts and scriptures can all be selectively interpreted to support virtually any position. Thus, I have made a concerted effort in both fields of study to pursue them in the manner of Philosophy, and to the degree possible, in the manner of Logic.

The philosophical approach is one designed to come into a more comprehensive understanding of the truth, regardless of where it may lead. The logical approach, more often than not, and especially in terms of the Law, is more convoluted, given the inclusion and (selective and arbitrary) utilization of the Justinian Codex, the English Common Law, (sometimes incorrectly referred to as Natural Law) the Natural Law as it applies to all humanity, Equity Law, Commercial Law … also by and large known as Maritime Law as it has been used, through various acts of our illustrious and dear leaders, to supplant the other matters of law unless such rights as shall be deemed to be necessary shall be actively claimed and/or other matters of law are specifically requested and arranged for in accordance with all of the requisite procedures in place … as we now have Procedural Courts as well as Jurisdictional Courts … though I dare say that our judicial system has long ago abandoned any pretense of seeking justice.

These days it seems to be substantially more about quantifying “social justice” (and no, the word Justice does not need to be quantified, qualified or otherwise limited or restricted) and merely seeking to increase conviction rates for the sake of political leverage.

This is all very necessary to understand in order to also be able to understand how …

  1. Not all Attorneys understand the full force and effect of the law, but merely operate under existing standards because “that’s the way things are” and “that’s just how we do it”.

  1. It is very possible for opposing attorneys to view the same facts and draw diametrically opposed conclusions of law, in complete accordance with the law on both sides … making actual adjudication subject to the personal thoughts and character of the judge hearing the proceedings and reviewing the conclusions of law, thus making “Blind” justice open her eyes to the arbitrary enforcement of human nature and opinion and making it virtually impossible to have a completely objective law without subjective interpretation

  1. Why so many “legal terms” are actually banking terms

  1. YOUR NAME IN ALL CAPS HERE makes you a lawful federal citizen of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA … again, a seemingly innocuous distinction that cries out “conspiracy theory” and “nutter” … though at the same time, making you the person of inherence and a recipient of privileges under the federal system and not a flesh and blood human being enjoying God-given and Constitutionally Protected rights

  1. Subrogation

  1. The purpose of the Equity Court to establish financial value of a bond and the option for the defendant to select the jurisdiction for lawful recourse and a redress of the grievances charged to him in accordance with a financial bond attached to the Corporate Individual with the “person of inherence” (Note: NOT the flesh and blood human being) being tried for fulfillment of said “Bond”

  1. Why State Nullification Laws are virtually unheard of and any mention of Jury Nullification will get you and anyone within hearing distance dismissed from potential selection as jurors

  1. The ALL CAPS NAME person is Res … property … thus a Res Ident

  1. A person is one to whom rights and duties are ascribed

  1. The person who is the recipient and subject of such Duties is known as the “Person of Inherence”

  1. A “Person” who fails to “assert” their rights has considered to have “Waived” those rights … to knowingly and willfully cede their rights to the “jurisdiction” of the Court

  1. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was fully incorporated under the Organic Act of 1871, and though Corporate (Artificial Person) Status is necessary for any nation in order that it may be ascribed with rights and duties, this was further extended to a full incorporation of all the independent States, Cities, and even … to our detriment, Counties … formerly one of the strongest government voices of the people directly … thus the County Sheriff is still perceived today to have many powers which were ceded to federal legislation and control under the articles of incorporation of the individual Counties and even states

  1. Why “Landowners” Have “Certificate of Title” and do not have “Land Title” to such lands as they “own”

  1. When a person is born, that person is granted an ALL CAPS NAME “Civil” Birth Certificate replete with a CUSIP number (I believe this is also the case for the SSI but again, I am doing this largely from memory).

    When they are married, they receive an ALL CAPS NAME “Civil” Wedding Certificate and upon the end of their natural life (Be it corporeal death or corporate death (the death of the Artificial Person who is the corporate persona of the Person of inherence)) they are granted a “Civil” Death Certificate … it should also be noted that the inclusion of the Maiden Name of the Mother, incorporates the newborn as an immediate and lawful Ward of the State, granting the State … the federal system in this case, all rights in regards to the raising and upbringing of the child … and you thought it was coincidence that CPS did not need a warrant to remove a child at their behest without need for warrant or constitutionally protected due rights?

  1. That THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has been in bankruptcy since 1933 and run under the Emergency Powers Act … with subsequent presidents all declaring via executive order, some “emergency” or other, thus continuing the Emergency Powers as enacted in 1933

The list goes on but that should get the ball rolling. I have included some references immediately here below, and also some additional writings further down for anyone who does wish to delve into the more conspiratorial nature of this matter.

Am I proclaiming that this is some great big conspiracy? It would seem difficult to believe that such an act could have occurred at all, much less been continued and expanded throughout the history of our nation without the complete and willful cooperation of a great many key players.

Sometimes Occam’s Razor is just a razor.

It could very well be that Ben Franklin was right, and every effort has been made to obfuscate the law to such a degree that even the lawyers have a difficult time understanding it. It could very well be that all of this was merely a concerted effort to centralize the federal government as the sole sovereign ruler and effectively negate the independent nature of the States.

It could further be possible that this was merely an effort to combine the Justinian Codex, the Corpus Juris Secundum, the Common Law, Organic Law and even Statutory and Regulatory Law under a single body of law and that the easiest means for accomplishing this was to toss everything under the Commercial Law because as we live and breathe, we have a direct impact on Interstate Commerce.

Who among us will ever know for sure?



I have also included some additional materials here, and some of the many points of reference used to put this all together. I would go deeper into all of this, but space here would be limited, as would attention spans of some readers. Also, virtually all of my previous work has been lost or resides on a hard drive I cannot access until I can get another desktop computer … assuming of course the hard drive is still good.

ORGANIC ACT. An act of congress conferring powers of government upon a territory. In re Lane, 10 S.Ct. 760, 135 U.S. 443, 34 L.Ed. 219. A statute by which a municipal corporation is organized and created is its "organic act" and the limit of its power, so that all acts beyond the scope of the powers there granted are void. Tharp v. Blake, Tex.Civ.App., 171 S.W. 549, 550.

HJR-192 prohibits payment of debt and substitutes, in its place, a discharge of an obligation -- thereby not only subverting, but totally bypassing the "absolute prohibition" so carefully engineered into the Constitution. There is, now, nothing for this Article to operate on, just as there is nothing for Common Law to operate on. Perpetual debt, bills, notes, cheques and credits fall within a totally different jurisdiction than contemplated by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 -- and that jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the Law of Admiralty and Maritime. Now, it is easy to see how "bills" as plenty as oak leaves, "polluted the laws after the War For Independence, as described by Peletiah Webster". This is how we lost access to substantive Common Law -- the very law the Minute Men fought to regain. This egregious abuse of the economic and financial systems has both aided and been aided by the perversion of the law of the land, the Constitution … in addition to allowing the federal system to regulate how States may or may not function in matters of law.

THINGS. The objects of dominion or property as contradistinguished from "persons." Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Bush, 191 Ark. 1085, 89 S.W. 2d 723, 725, 103 A.L.R. 367; Gayer v. Whelan, 59 Cal.App.2d 255, 138 P.2d 763, 768. The object of a right; e., whatever is treated by the law as the object over which one person exercises a right, and with reference to which another person lies under a duty {The Person of Inherence}. Holl. Jur. 83.

Person: Persons are the subject of rights and duties; and, as a subject of a right, the person is the object of the correlative duty, and conversely. The subject of a right has been called by Professor Holland, the person of inherence ; the subject of a duty, the person of incidence. "Entitled" and "bound" are the terms in common use in English and for most purposes they are adequate. Every full citizen is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not citizens, may be persons. But not every human being is necessarily a person, for a person is capable of rights and duties, and there may well be human beings having no legal rights, as was the case with slaves in English law. • * A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the Persons are the subject of rights and duties; and, as a subject of a right, the person is the object of the correlative duty, and conversely. The subject of a right has been called by Professor Holland, the person of inherence ; the subject of a duty, the person of incidence. "Entitled" and "bound" are the terms in common use in English and for most purposes they are adequate. Every full citizen is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not citizens, may be persons. But not every human being is necessarily a person, for a person is capable of rights and duties, and there may well be human beings having no legal rights, as was the case with slaves in English law. • • * A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person. Pollock, First Book of Jurispr. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. IL

Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by the laws, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc. Winnett v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, 99 N.W. 681. {Part of why I believe government has no authority or right to insert itself into private contractual agreements between two consenting adults in ANY marriage … not to mention the religious and/or faith based concept of marriage which only serves to further dismiss any government involvement in the same}

From the word "attorn" is derived the name and occupation of an "attorney;" one who transfers or assigns property, rights, title and allegiance to the owner of the land.
ATTORN / v. Me. [Origin French. atorneraturner assign, appoint, f. a-torner turn v.] 1. v.t. Turn; change, transform; deck out. 2. v.t Turn over (goods, service, allegiance, etc.) to another; transfer, assign. 3. v.i. Transfer one"s tenancy, or (arch.) homage or allegiance, to another; formally acknowledge such transfer. attorn tenant (to) Law formally transfer one"s tenancy (to), make legal acknowledgement of tenancy ( to a new landlord). - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.
ATTORN, v.i. [Latin ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
ATTORNMENT, n. The act of a feudatory, vassal or tenant, by which he consents, upon the alienation of an estate, to receive a new lord or superior, and transfers to him his homage and service.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
ATTORNMENT n. the transference of bailor status, tenancy, or (arch.) allegiance, service, etc., to another; 
formal acknowledgement of such transfer: lme. - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

Although modern usage tends to group all these descriptive occupational words as the same, the fact is that they have different and distinctive meanings when used within the context of court activities:

Solicitor - one who petitions (initiates) for another in a court
Counselor - one who advises another concerning a court matter
Lawyer - [see counselor] learned in the law to advise in a court
Barrister - one who is privileged to plead at the bar
Advocate - one who pleads within the bar for a defendant
Attorney - one who transfers or assigns, within the bar, another's rights & property acting on behalf of the ruling crown (government)

FEE. A charge fixed by law for services of public officers or for use of a privilege under control of government. Fort Smith Gas Co. v. Wiseman, 189 Ark. 675, 74 S.W.2d 789, 790. A recompense for an official or professional service or a charge or emolument or compensation for a particular act or service. Craig v. Shelton, 201 Ky. 790, 258 S.W. 694.

Waiver is intentional relinquishment of a known right. Globe Indemnity Co. v. Cohen, C.C.A.Pa., 106 F.2d 687, 691; Beatty v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation, 106 Vt. 25, 168 A. 919, 922; but may be more narrowly and accurately defined as intended giving up of known privilege or power. John Alt Furniture Co. v. Maryland Casualty. Co., C.C.A.Mo., 88 F.2d 36, 41. Waiver is voluntary and intentional. Insurance Co. of North America v. Williams, 42 Ariz. 331, 26 P.2d 117, 119; Sentinel Fire Ins. Co. v. McRoberts, 50 Ga.App. 732, 179 S.E. 256. Waiver is voluntary surrender or relinquishment of some known right, benefit or advantage; estoppel is the inhibition to assert it. Benson v. Borden, 174 Md. 202, 198 A. 419, 427, 428; Johnston v. Columbian Nat. Life Ins. Co., 130 Me. 143, 154 A. 79, 80.

Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by the laws, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc. Winnett v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, 99 N.W. 681. Or, as otherwise defined, civil rights are rights appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution, and by various acts of congress made in pursuance thereof. State of Iowa v. Railroad Co., C.C.Iowa, 37 F. 498, 3 L.R.A. 554; State v. Powers, 51 N.J.L. 432, 17 A. 969.

RIGHT: As a noun, and taken in a concrete sense, a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another. "Rights" are defined generally as "powers of free action." And the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law. But leaving the abstract moral sphere, and giving to the term a juristic content, a "right" is well defined as "a capacity residing in one man of controlling, with the assent and assistance of the state, the actions of others." Holl. Jur. 69. \

RIGHT OF LOCAL SELF–GOVERNMENT. Power of citizens to govern themselves, as to matters purely local in nature, through officers of their own selection. City of Ardmore v. Excise Board of Carter County, 155 Oki. 126, 8 P.2d 2, 11.

RIGHTS OF PERSONS. Rights which concern and are annexed to the persons of men. 1 Bl. Comm. 122. (Note the wording)

A right not specifically claimed is considered by law, to be “Waived” by the defendant.

SUBROGATION. The substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim, demand or right, Whyel v. Smith, 101 Fla. 971, 134 So. 552, 554; so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relatio. p to the debt or claim, and its rights, remedies, or securities. Home Owners' Loan Corporation v. Baker, 299 Mass. 158, 12 N.E.2d 199, 201; Gerken v. Davidson Grocery Co., 57 Idaho 670, 69 P.2d 122, 126. A legal fiction through which a person who, not as a volunteer or in his own wrong, and in absence of outstanding and superior equities, pays debt of another, is substituted to all rights and remedies of the other, and the debt is treated in equity as still existing for his benefit, and the doctrine is broad enough to include every instance in which one party pays the debt for which another is primarily answerable, and which in equity and good conscience should have been discharged by such other. Home Owners' Loan Corporation v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 123 Conn. 232, 193 . 769, 772. The principle which lies at the bottom of the doctrine is that the person seeking it must have paid the debt under grave necessity to save himself a loss. The right is never accorded to a volunteer. Callan Court Co. v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank, 184 Ga. 87, 190 S.E. 831, 856. "Subrogation" is equitable remedy borrowed from civil law. Ierardi v. Farmers' Trust Co. of Newark, 4 W.W. Harr. Del., 246, 151 A. 822, 825. And as a matter of right, independently of agreement, takes place only for the benefit of insurers ; or of one who, being himself a creditor, has satisfied the lien of a prior creditor ; or for the benefit of a purchaser who has extinguished an incumbrance upon the estate which he has purchased; or of a co-obligor or surety who has paid the debt which ought, in whole or in part, to have been met by another. The doctrine of "subrogation" is not applied for the mere stranger or volunteer who has paid the debt of another without any assignment or agreement for subrogation, without bein under any legal obligation to make the payment, and without being compelled to do so for the preservation of any rights or property of his own. Harford Bank of Bel Air v. Hopper's Estate, 169 Md. 314, 181 A. 751, 755. It is also said that its elements are: (1) That party claiming it shall have paid debt; (2) that he was not a volunteer, but had a direct interest in discharge of debt or lien; (3) that he was secondarily liable for debt or discharge of lien; (4) that no injustice would be done to the other party by allowance of the equity. Hampton Loan & Exchange Bank v. Lightsey, 155 S.C. 222, 152 S.E. 425, 427. Subrogation is of two kinds, either conventional or legal; the former being where the subrogation is express, by the acts of the creditor and the third person; the latter being (as in the case Of sureties) where the subrogation is effected or implied by the operation of the law. Gordon v. Stewart, 4 Neb., Unof., 852, 96 N.W. 628; Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Cornwell, 72 Hun, 199, 25 N.Y.S. 348; Fr ench v. Grand Beach Co., 239 Mich. 575, 215 N.W. 13, 14; Meyer v. Florida Home Finders, 90 Fla. 128, 105 So. 267, 268; Combs v. Agee, 148 Va. 471, 139 S.E. 265, 266.

SUBROGEE. A person who is subrogated; one who succeeds to the rights of another by subrogation.

SUBSCRIBE. Literally to write underneath, as one's name; sub, under; scribere, to write; or, to write below a documentary statement, and in its popular meaning is usually limited to a signature at the end of a printed or written instrument. {A Ticket, Summons or other Lawful Document – which is why a signature on any documented presented by a court and/or Law Enforcement should be enclosed in a box, thus negating its presence as part of the lawful document but complying with the cops on the scene and avoiding confrontation} Corporation Commission of North Carolina v. Wilkinson, 201 N.C. 344, 160 S.E. 292, 294. In re Arcowsky's Will, 171 Misc. 41, 11 N.Y.S.2d 853, 854. Also to agree in writing to furnish money or its equivalent. Jefferson County Farm Bureau v. Sherman, 208 Iowa 614, 226 N.W. 182, 185.

SUBSCRIBER. One who writes his name under a written instrument; one who affixes his signature to any document, whether for the purpose of authenticating or attesting it, of adopting its terms as his own expressions, or of binding himself by an engagement which it contains. One who becomes bound by a subscription to the capital stock of a corporation. Latimer v. Bennett, 37 Ga.App. 246, 139 S.E. 570, 572. A "subscriber" is one who has agreed to take stock from the corporation on the original issue of such stock. {Birth Certificates and other “Civil” Documents from the Corporate aspect of governance} Jones v. Rankin, 19 N.M. 56, 140 P. 1120, 1121. "Subscriber," as used in the Workmen's Compensation Act, means an employer who has become a member of the association or insured under the act. In re Cox, 225 Mass. 220, 114 N.E. 281, 283.

Let us know what you think please!

Pin It