I'm keen to read your next post on private vs public international law, American Hypnotist.
As a writer myself, I want you to know that I'm a fan of your writing in terms of the topics you choose, your organization and clarity, and especially your writing voice. I'm glad that I've discovered you and Badlands.
Thank you so much for bringing forth this highly relevant information. Before there could be Federal subcontractors performing Federal government jobs, there had to be free people who created the documents necessary to declare their standing, status and jurisdiction. Thankfully, that happened with the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Because of it, we have nation-states at the soil or county level. Because of The Federation of States also known as The United States of America 9/9/1776, we also have State Citizens of each state who have organized the land jurisdiction of their respective State of the Union (aka The United States- notice the capital “T” in “The”, making it a proper noun and proper name.
There’s an active movement happening to restore each nation-state, and State of the Union, so that we can restore then restore our Confederation of States of States called States of America (1781). This is how we become the employers again!
After that, we can restore the Federal Republic, which is the first American Federal subcontractor hired under The Constitution for the united States of America (1787) and get the federal government workers to be beholden to their employers again.
It’s happening. It’s in progress, and we all need one another to participate because you can’t have a “We the People” government without the actual people voluntarily becoming People.
Correct your birthright status to that of a man, or woman, declare where you were born, and get busy my friends.
Sort of… One’s nationality will always be where they were born. however, they are not required to stay there or return there in order to retain birthright inheritance from their nation.
Happening down under in Terra Australis. I have reconveyed back to the land and soil jurisdiction. Thanks to Judge Anna educating us. AUSTRALIA is a corporation registered in the US securities exchange. Same as COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
Regarding formal language, within the military/engineering field, it goes a step further with the prolific over-use of acronyms - TLAs (two-letter/three-letter acronyms) and longer. As a mechanical engineer, I started my career with a smaller company, six divisions, 2000 total employees. We had some industry/business specific terms, which rather clearly defined technical and functional aspects of our work. Fifteen years in, I went to work for a large defense contractor - and was I in for jargon overload! Everything had an abbreviation - products, processes, reviews/meetings, project phases. Larger programs had their own best-practice defined acronym glossary. Many times the same acronym could map to multiple different phrases. Technical shorthand, but it does carry with it a not insignificant intellectual overhead - often leading to frustration, especially for new employees, and many times contributing to less solid understanding than one would hope for.
Before the end of the 18th century, everyone was a statist. Plato and Socrates and the whole Greek tradition is statist. There is not now, nor has there ever been a government superior to the state. Russia is a state. Germany and Italy are states. But it's more complex than that. To be a viable state you need a common language and culture, but you also need geographical assets, like defensible natural borders and accessible ports. Without these assets, it's natural for a state to be crushed by its neighbors. It's unnatural for a state to exist without these geographical assets, as proved by the history of Poland, which lacks defensible natural borders (although it has a fine port on the Baltic Sea). Without foreign interference, Poland would not exist. In fact, it was already erased from the map in the 1870s until the treaty of Versailles 1917, which created a huge Poland that was intended to be a buffer between Germany and Russia. That's why Germany's attack on Poland caused France and England to declare war on Germany in 1939. When we apply these ideas to the USA we see the viability of many states is unnatural and these states depend entirely on their neighbors good will for their existence. Since it has a very similar language and culture to its neighboring states and no ports or defensible borders, does Oklahoma, for example, have the ability to be a self supporting state? No it doesn't. Many of our states are like that. Our situation in the states is rapidly evolving and tenuous, and the dissolution of the USA corporate entity will cause a chaotic period in the states. The states that are not viable or natural won't exist for long after the corporate entity sails back to England because it can no longer make money here. The interest of the USA in America is similar to the Dutch India Company's in India. It's trying to make money. When it can no longer do that it will leave.
Let it leave, then restore the "original" Constitution FOR The United States, and banish the usurping version called The Constitution OF The United States established in 1871. By doing so we will revert from a democracy back to the Republic the Founders and Framers created. Under the original Constitution all 50 States could coexist indefinitely. IMHO
To add to the confusion, whether you are a state national living in the private under natural law versus a state citizen living in the public and subject to municipal/state/national corporate laws, you can not be state national and a citizen at the same time. The Constitution for America versus the Constitution OF America. Language. Intentionally kept quiet.
Original US Constitution was called "The Constitution FOR The United States" but the one being used since 1871 is titled "The Constitution OF The United States" and that secretly changed the US to a corporation with voting rights, aka; a democracy, but did not create a single all encompassing nation as the Pledge of Allegiance (One Nation Under God) implies. Under the original Constitution we were a Republic loosely held together by a contract (Constitution) with limited and specific powers granted by the several States. All rights not granted to the federal system were retained by the States and the People (See the 10th. Amendment). Prior to 1871 every citizen owed their allegiance to the State wherein they resided, and not the federal institution known as The United States.
Example: The primary reason General Robert E. Lee left the Union Army to serve Virginia, to which he owed his allegiance, during the Civil War. At that time it was considered right and honorable. It should be still.
You really got me thinking now, not sure how all this tries together but the journey is exhilarating.
We have been lied to a great deal all our lives and how it will all untangle I am not sure but we must push forward and through this web of lies to get to the Truth.
I’m with you Joe. It’s a lot to take in, and I admit I can only comprehend on a certain level (thus far anyway), but the journey is exhilarating! I have the Black’s Law Dictionary on my wish list too!
Very good article and the comments also informative. I have felt in my gut, not really from any research, that the 13 colonies kind of reluctantly got together because they knew that was the only way to end paying britain. There had to be a war so the colonies had to join together for that purpose. The federal government was never suppose to have the power it now has. I find it hopeful that the states can stand firm, have courage to lose federal funding which is a bribe, and say we will not go along with the policies the federal governemt dictates. Just as indiviual counties have been able to say for example weed is legal here,, or raw milk can be sold here. Starts very grass roots not complying with federal government.
This is very interesting in light of the WHO's attempt to usurp sovereignty. If I'm understanding private vs. public international law, neither Biden nor Congress has the right to give the sovereignty of all 50 states to a foreign international body. What would this mean for the Paris Accord? The UN (and the dues we've been paying)? What does it mean for federal taxes? Are these even legal? Would that make the IRS illegal? What about the Federal Reserve? If you keep going down the road with this, it's mind blowing!
Quite the interesting topic. I'm interested in the way the law can define words with a common known definition into something obscure. Under "LAW" the terms, "person, individual, entity, foundation, an trust all refer to Corporations. If I go into any court I have to make it perfectly clear, that I am "One of We The People" Not a person, individual, entity, foundation, trust or Corporation. They automatically assume that you fit in these categories because that is all that is allowed in our illegal court system of the Water Jurisdiction. I like your work an look forward to more of your insights... Peace...
The Civil War, unfortunately, settled the issue of whether we were "These United States" or "The United States". Mr. Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address made his intentions clear: "...our forefathers brought forth on this continent, a new NATION..." The remainder of the short speech goes on to argue that such a nation should not "perish from the earth" by some of its constituent States no longer adhering to their voluntary union. Not a word about slavery, btw. And it's telling that the few confederates who were buried at Gettysburg were later exhumed and buried elsewhere because they fought against the union. "The Union" was all-important. Full disclosure: I'm from NE Ohio, the hottest of hotbeds of abolitionism in the years leading up to the conflict. The Ohio farm boys who fought and died in that war thought they were freeing the slaves. Their masters in Washington knew better.
A recent Independence Day, I got to wondering whether the Southern States had created Declarations of Independence stating their reasons for withdrawal. Such documents are readily fond on the web. The four or five I looked at all said they were withdrawing because the North had broken its word about the return of "property" (slaves) who escaped into the North. And Lincoln had a dreadful problem getting soldiers to fight for him until he made it about slavery. So in the end, it really WAS about slavery.
Yes. The power brokers in D.C. had other ideas, but in the minds and hearts of the farm boys in blue, it WAS about slavery. My hometown has a bronze diorama downtown commemorating the underground railroad. John Brown had a tannery in town which stood until around 1980, the site of which is now Tannery Park. In the next town over is the congregational church that Brown, after hearing an abolitionist speak, dedicated himself to the cause. And Lincoln himself, upon meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe, said, "So you're the little lady that caused this big war." I guess the government wasn't much more honest then than it is now.
If Lincoln falsely believed the US was one nation, then what "Union" was he referring too? He knew what America was, a union of individual States, aka; a Republic. He knew the CSA had a Constitutional right to withdraw from the union, but chose to go to war rather than allow them their legal right to leave in peace. Lincoln is responsible for the so called Civil War, and the 750,000 Americans who died because of it.
You are correct, it had very little, if anything, to do with slavery.
Lincoln's Emancipation address cannot create a nation by mere words, just at it didn't emancipate slaves by stating they were free. Slavery was abolished by a Constitutional Amendment after Lincoln was dead. And any law that is repugnant to the "Original" Constitution is not a law, it is null and void. We are not one nation under God, we are 50-nations under God, loosely bound together by a contract originally know as "The Constitution FOR The United States". The current Constitution OF The United States is a lie, not an agreement / contract that We the People ever agreed to... it is therefore VOID.
Couple decades ago, California wanted child support from me for time she was in custody in CA. I lived in Colorado and disputed it in court. The Colorado legalese referred to California as "foreign."
I'm keen to read your next post on private vs public international law, American Hypnotist.
As a writer myself, I want you to know that I'm a fan of your writing in terms of the topics you choose, your organization and clarity, and especially your writing voice. I'm glad that I've discovered you and Badlands.
Thank you so much for bringing forth this highly relevant information. Before there could be Federal subcontractors performing Federal government jobs, there had to be free people who created the documents necessary to declare their standing, status and jurisdiction. Thankfully, that happened with the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Because of it, we have nation-states at the soil or county level. Because of The Federation of States also known as The United States of America 9/9/1776, we also have State Citizens of each state who have organized the land jurisdiction of their respective State of the Union (aka The United States- notice the capital “T” in “The”, making it a proper noun and proper name.
There’s an active movement happening to restore each nation-state, and State of the Union, so that we can restore then restore our Confederation of States of States called States of America (1781). This is how we become the employers again!
After that, we can restore the Federal Republic, which is the first American Federal subcontractor hired under The Constitution for the united States of America (1787) and get the federal government workers to be beholden to their employers again.
It’s happening. It’s in progress, and we all need one another to participate because you can’t have a “We the People” government without the actual people voluntarily becoming People.
Correct your birthright status to that of a man, or woman, declare where you were born, and get busy my friends.
More info on how to find your lawful Assembly here: https://TASA.AmericanStateNationals.org
There are also Thursday morning American Common Law 101, check out this long format explanation: https://rumble.com/v3rvzeq-americancommonlaw101october262023.html
It’s happening!!!!!!!
A question: Does one belong to his native state and is it necessary to return to the state where he was born?
Sort of… One’s nationality will always be where they were born. however, they are not required to stay there or return there in order to retain birthright inheritance from their nation.
Happening down under in Terra Australis. I have reconveyed back to the land and soil jurisdiction. Thanks to Judge Anna educating us. AUSTRALIA is a corporation registered in the US securities exchange. Same as COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
https://terraaustralisstatesassembly.com/
Great insights
Regarding formal language, within the military/engineering field, it goes a step further with the prolific over-use of acronyms - TLAs (two-letter/three-letter acronyms) and longer. As a mechanical engineer, I started my career with a smaller company, six divisions, 2000 total employees. We had some industry/business specific terms, which rather clearly defined technical and functional aspects of our work. Fifteen years in, I went to work for a large defense contractor - and was I in for jargon overload! Everything had an abbreviation - products, processes, reviews/meetings, project phases. Larger programs had their own best-practice defined acronym glossary. Many times the same acronym could map to multiple different phrases. Technical shorthand, but it does carry with it a not insignificant intellectual overhead - often leading to frustration, especially for new employees, and many times contributing to less solid understanding than one would hope for.
Evidence of a 'formal language' that developed organically without appropriate coordination.
Whenever anyone can create a new TLA, then pretty soon they mean nothing, except to the few 'in the know.'
Formal languages require explicit controls if they are to retain usefulness, as your experience shows.
Before the end of the 18th century, everyone was a statist. Plato and Socrates and the whole Greek tradition is statist. There is not now, nor has there ever been a government superior to the state. Russia is a state. Germany and Italy are states. But it's more complex than that. To be a viable state you need a common language and culture, but you also need geographical assets, like defensible natural borders and accessible ports. Without these assets, it's natural for a state to be crushed by its neighbors. It's unnatural for a state to exist without these geographical assets, as proved by the history of Poland, which lacks defensible natural borders (although it has a fine port on the Baltic Sea). Without foreign interference, Poland would not exist. In fact, it was already erased from the map in the 1870s until the treaty of Versailles 1917, which created a huge Poland that was intended to be a buffer between Germany and Russia. That's why Germany's attack on Poland caused France and England to declare war on Germany in 1939. When we apply these ideas to the USA we see the viability of many states is unnatural and these states depend entirely on their neighbors good will for their existence. Since it has a very similar language and culture to its neighboring states and no ports or defensible borders, does Oklahoma, for example, have the ability to be a self supporting state? No it doesn't. Many of our states are like that. Our situation in the states is rapidly evolving and tenuous, and the dissolution of the USA corporate entity will cause a chaotic period in the states. The states that are not viable or natural won't exist for long after the corporate entity sails back to England because it can no longer make money here. The interest of the USA in America is similar to the Dutch India Company's in India. It's trying to make money. When it can no longer do that it will leave.
Let it leave, then restore the "original" Constitution FOR The United States, and banish the usurping version called The Constitution OF The United States established in 1871. By doing so we will revert from a democracy back to the Republic the Founders and Framers created. Under the original Constitution all 50 States could coexist indefinitely. IMHO
You meant the Baltic Sea, but other than that, a really good, informative comment.
Oh Poland's port? Oh yeah, It's the Black Forest that is in Poland..thanks.
The Black Forest is in West Germany (I know very well as a neighbour !), and it's also the name for an excellent traditional chocolate cake !!
🇫🇷❤️🇺🇸
:-)
To add to the confusion, whether you are a state national living in the private under natural law versus a state citizen living in the public and subject to municipal/state/national corporate laws, you can not be state national and a citizen at the same time. The Constitution for America versus the Constitution OF America. Language. Intentionally kept quiet.
Original US Constitution was called "The Constitution FOR The United States" but the one being used since 1871 is titled "The Constitution OF The United States" and that secretly changed the US to a corporation with voting rights, aka; a democracy, but did not create a single all encompassing nation as the Pledge of Allegiance (One Nation Under God) implies. Under the original Constitution we were a Republic loosely held together by a contract (Constitution) with limited and specific powers granted by the several States. All rights not granted to the federal system were retained by the States and the People (See the 10th. Amendment). Prior to 1871 every citizen owed their allegiance to the State wherein they resided, and not the federal institution known as The United States.
Example: The primary reason General Robert E. Lee left the Union Army to serve Virginia, to which he owed his allegiance, during the Civil War. At that time it was considered right and honorable. It should be still.
You really got me thinking now, not sure how all this tries together but the journey is exhilarating.
We have been lied to a great deal all our lives and how it will all untangle I am not sure but we must push forward and through this web of lies to get to the Truth.
Keep it coming...
God Wins!
God Bless!!!
I’m with you Joe. It’s a lot to take in, and I admit I can only comprehend on a certain level (thus far anyway), but the journey is exhilarating! I have the Black’s Law Dictionary on my wish list too!
It is a for profit business
Very good article and the comments also informative. I have felt in my gut, not really from any research, that the 13 colonies kind of reluctantly got together because they knew that was the only way to end paying britain. There had to be a war so the colonies had to join together for that purpose. The federal government was never suppose to have the power it now has. I find it hopeful that the states can stand firm, have courage to lose federal funding which is a bribe, and say we will not go along with the policies the federal governemt dictates. Just as indiviual counties have been able to say for example weed is legal here,, or raw milk can be sold here. Starts very grass roots not complying with federal government.
This is very interesting in light of the WHO's attempt to usurp sovereignty. If I'm understanding private vs. public international law, neither Biden nor Congress has the right to give the sovereignty of all 50 states to a foreign international body. What would this mean for the Paris Accord? The UN (and the dues we've been paying)? What does it mean for federal taxes? Are these even legal? Would that make the IRS illegal? What about the Federal Reserve? If you keep going down the road with this, it's mind blowing!
Quite the interesting topic. I'm interested in the way the law can define words with a common known definition into something obscure. Under "LAW" the terms, "person, individual, entity, foundation, an trust all refer to Corporations. If I go into any court I have to make it perfectly clear, that I am "One of We The People" Not a person, individual, entity, foundation, trust or Corporation. They automatically assume that you fit in these categories because that is all that is allowed in our illegal court system of the Water Jurisdiction. I like your work an look forward to more of your insights... Peace...
The Civil War, unfortunately, settled the issue of whether we were "These United States" or "The United States". Mr. Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address made his intentions clear: "...our forefathers brought forth on this continent, a new NATION..." The remainder of the short speech goes on to argue that such a nation should not "perish from the earth" by some of its constituent States no longer adhering to their voluntary union. Not a word about slavery, btw. And it's telling that the few confederates who were buried at Gettysburg were later exhumed and buried elsewhere because they fought against the union. "The Union" was all-important. Full disclosure: I'm from NE Ohio, the hottest of hotbeds of abolitionism in the years leading up to the conflict. The Ohio farm boys who fought and died in that war thought they were freeing the slaves. Their masters in Washington knew better.
A recent Independence Day, I got to wondering whether the Southern States had created Declarations of Independence stating their reasons for withdrawal. Such documents are readily fond on the web. The four or five I looked at all said they were withdrawing because the North had broken its word about the return of "property" (slaves) who escaped into the North. And Lincoln had a dreadful problem getting soldiers to fight for him until he made it about slavery. So in the end, it really WAS about slavery.
Yes. The power brokers in D.C. had other ideas, but in the minds and hearts of the farm boys in blue, it WAS about slavery. My hometown has a bronze diorama downtown commemorating the underground railroad. John Brown had a tannery in town which stood until around 1980, the site of which is now Tannery Park. In the next town over is the congregational church that Brown, after hearing an abolitionist speak, dedicated himself to the cause. And Lincoln himself, upon meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe, said, "So you're the little lady that caused this big war." I guess the government wasn't much more honest then than it is now.
If Lincoln falsely believed the US was one nation, then what "Union" was he referring too? He knew what America was, a union of individual States, aka; a Republic. He knew the CSA had a Constitutional right to withdraw from the union, but chose to go to war rather than allow them their legal right to leave in peace. Lincoln is responsible for the so called Civil War, and the 750,000 Americans who died because of it.
You are correct, it had very little, if anything, to do with slavery.
Lincoln's Emancipation address cannot create a nation by mere words, just at it didn't emancipate slaves by stating they were free. Slavery was abolished by a Constitutional Amendment after Lincoln was dead. And any law that is repugnant to the "Original" Constitution is not a law, it is null and void. We are not one nation under God, we are 50-nations under God, loosely bound together by a contract originally know as "The Constitution FOR The United States". The current Constitution OF The United States is a lie, not an agreement / contract that We the People ever agreed to... it is therefore VOID.
Why was Mike Johnson called the 45th Speaker?
What are you implying?
Just wondering why, if anyone knew.
This read was intriguing to say the least! I definitely will reread it and digest it for sure!
Thanks American Hypnotist!
Couple decades ago, California wanted child support from me for time she was in custody in CA. I lived in Colorado and disputed it in court. The Colorado legalese referred to California as "foreign."
Private Law And Public Municipal Law
Let's understand the meaning of private law versus
public municipal law. Private law, also called non-
positive law and local law, is a term that is used to
describe the principles and regulations that an individual
uses to direct his or her own life. It is also called the "law
of conscience." That is, it is your personal philosophical
and religious belief system that you use to control your
own life and decisions. For example, if you state that you
believe that abortions are not proper, then you are
verbalizing a part of your private law. If you express that
you believe that it is not proper for you to own a gun, then
you are again expressing a part of your private law.
Private law's only area of function outside your own
conscience is in the area of contracts. In other words, a
person will always use his personal principles of
conscience in negotiating any agreement with another
individual. An example of this would be the merchant
who works out a contract with a company to provide items
for sale in a store he owns. His reason for contracting with
this particular company is because he believes the items
they manufacture should be in every household for health
reasons. The merchant's personal beliefs or conscience are
involved in this contract as in any contract.
Private law operates outside of the Constitution under the
rights of private contract as stipulated in Article I,
Section 10.Article I, in its entirety, expresses all the
private law that is allowed in the operation of government
of the several states of the union. Section 8 and clause 17
of this Article states that any other private law that is
necessary for operation of government for the commercial
benefit of the several states of the union can be legislated.
It must be remembered that Article I is not entirely private
law. There is some public municipal law there. This public
municipal law is for the establishment of public services
for private benefit, i.e., "Post Roads and Post Offices,"
and the Public Laws of Obligation of Contracts, etc..
It must be understood that private law, as referred to in the
Constitution, operated in the private sector as a part of
negotiating bilateral contracts. Private law was never
meant to operate in the public sector as a basis for
controlling public policy. Our founders made that very
clear. In the next section on Roman civil law you will be
shown how private law was made into public policy by
entrapment to produce compelled performance.
Public municipal law (also referred to as positive law
and general law in contrast to private law) is the
9/14/2020 U.S.A. The Republic, Is The House That No One Lives In
usa-the-republic.com/Lee_Brobst/usa.html 9/67
expression of all the laws that limit government and
maintain the separation of powers of the "states in this
union."/9Public municipal law is an expression of the
people limiting government for their own personal benefit
and liberty. Remember, the people are the government.
What powers the people do not delegate for the
administration of government are kept by them. The
Public Laws are laws that assure the people of
maintaining their private rights of bilateral contracts
separate from any government intervention. The only time
that public municipal law is used actively for private
purposes, in a legal sense, is when a private right has been
violated and the public municipal law is used in the court
to address the wrong and correct it.
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional
rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his own
private business in his own way. His power to
contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State
or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to
open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may
tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to
the State, since he receives nothing there-from,
beyond the protection of his life and property. His
rights are such as existed by the law of the land
long antecedent to the organization of the State. ...
He owes nothing to the public so long as he does
not trespass upon their rights."/10
As early as 1782, Jefferson told Monroe that it was
ridiculous to suppose that a man should surrender himself
to the state. This would be slavery, and not the liberty
which the Bill of Rights has made inviolable, and for the
preservation of which our government has been changed.
[Changed from the Roman civil law to the
Common Civil Law/11 - see section on Roman
Civil Law.]
Jefferson continued and said that liberty would be
destroyed anytime there is,
".... the establishment of the opinion that the state
has a perpetual right to the services of all its
members."/12
The term "that liberty" to which Jefferson refers is Public
Law for private purposes and "that liberty" is self-evident
and comes before the State and is opposite to "the
Blessings of Liberty" in the preamble of the Constitution -
which is commercial./13