Just Contradiction Part Two

Hello again,

     While researching the law regarding the points in this post, I noticed some government and media attention has been focused on a group name “Sovereigns” as being classified as if they were a ‘hate’ group. Based solely on news reports, it’s my understanding other groups believe people who consider themselves sovereign are a threat to – someone. Situations like this remind me to consider the motive of a group that brings a claim against another group, prior to the formation of my own opinion.
     I do realize, however, that not all politicians are crooked; not all Muslims are terrorists; not all lawyers are liars; not all prisoners are evil; and not all “Sovereigntists” are haters who some consider a threat because of a perceived exploitation of the system.
     With the above in mind, I’d like to make it perfectly clear that Ali3nz are not allied with those people labeled as sovereign or any other group that allegedly promotes hate, fraud, or a violation of any other just law or moral standard. Any references to ‘sovereignty’ herein is made only to educate the reader within the context of unreasonable “contradictions” of a supposedly fair and impartial system of justice, and are supported by case law or other precedential rule. It follows that we’ll present certain quotas along with what the legal profession calls, ‘a citation’ by which anyone may check the veracity of the quoted material. A typical citation consists of the name of the case or rule, and the subsequent volume number of the book where the cite may be found. Then an abbreviation of the particular type of record [i.e.: Sct. = U.S. Supreme Court Reporter, or F3d = Federal Reporter – third edition (Circuit Courts of Appeals)], followed by the page number of that volume. Bold, underlined or other emphasis applied to the following text is my own addition.
     The point to all this is to expose the unfair justice system for the arbitrary effect it has on some people, to uncover reasons for the unfairness/why the injustice is allowed, how all this relates to disenfranchised Ali3nz, and to specify a possible method to remedy the contradictions, thereby gaining true justice.
     The previous entry about systemic in-justice exposed even more questions which led yours truly to investigate further, but where to start? How does one find the nature of something so infinitely complex?
For forty-odd years, my thinking process has been anything but logical, as evidenced by my admitted ups-and-downs (well, mostly downs). Over time, I’ve learned to ‘break down’ a given subject into its lowest terms (or essence) in order to discover the nature of a thing. In my mind this is somehow a substitute for logic. In that light, I didn’t believe it was too much of a stretch to conclude the in-justice system did not become contradictory overnight. There had to be some history involved. Recorded history can be located and studied. Working from that hypothesis, the mechanism which appealed most to me for finding the separation point between what these days makes zero sense and what seemed to make sense in the past – is time travel.
     Back in the 80’s – well that’s far enough back, although Huey Lewis did make the “Back in Time’ reference then “Where American history is concerned, how far ‘back’ should I look? If the government gets its power from a contract/compact in the form of a constitution, then where does the power of the constitution come from? So I ask a lot of questions that anyone who paid attention in government class would find elementary. I failed that class three times.
     Something else I’ve discovered is that judges have given their opinions both for and against a seemingly countless number of issues. For example, the Supreme Court opinion of, Martin et al vs. The Lessee of Waddell, 41 US 367, states: “for when the revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign.” If that were true then, when people came together in a common cause (to oust the King of England), then each and every living human was at that time in fact, a sovereign, owing no fealty to anyone because they were no longer “subjects.”

What is the Nature of Sovereignty?

     “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source f law…” Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356. Therefore, one might conclude, as I did, that sovereign humans either entered into some kind of agreement wherein they gave up some of the sovereignty to the government (or government’s creditors) or they kept their sovereignty and created a government that was supposed to be subject to the sovereign people. And it appears the latter took place because:
“The Constitution is the voice of the people speaking in their sovereign capacity. People vs. Parks, 58 Ca. 624.
     So we might reasonably conclude that, the people who created the constitution and their ‘posterity’ were superior to government, initially anyway. Carrying that point forward in an unaltered state then, when I entered this world, kicking and crying, I should have been a sovereign automatically, not subject to government regulation at least until another “sovereign” human has/had an issue with me. At that point, two sovereigns might use the ‘government’ to settle a dispute, like an umpire.
     After tentatively establishing that point in my own mind, I wondered if governmental rules would directly apply since I have not (knowingly) relinquished my sovereign status in any way (hell, I didn’t know ‘sovereignty’ existed in the first place). Without entering into such an agreement, how could I become subject to a corporate entity that is supposed to be subject to me (or at least subject to the original framers of the constitutional compact)?
     Keeping in mind the ‘commercial contract’ premises found in Part One, as we return to the American post-revolutionary period, I learned (or maybe re-learned), the Continental Congress incurred some debt from fighting the war with Brittain. As a result of this debt, in 1781 the Congress was obligated by its Brittish creditors to form the First National Bank of the United States. The term of a bank’s charter was to be for twenty years. When the government elected to not renew the charter, the War of 1812 was fought mostly within the District of Columbia. Seemingly, after the Brigs possessed D.C. they mysteriously “surrendered” and went home. The U.S. government promptly renewed the charter for the First National Bank.
Some say (though Ii have no proof as yet), that in 1871 the District of Columbia was ‘incorporated’ in England. I did find, however, the “Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” at 16 STAT 419 that was passed and states:
     “The United States of America is a corporation, whose jurisdiction is applicable only in the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia and to whatever properties are legally titled to the United States, by its registration in the corporate county, state, and Federal court governments that are under the military power of the United States and its creditors.”
Even in this day and age, we find that, “The UNITED STATES” means: “A Federal corporation…” Title 28 USC 3002 (5).
     We also learn that the United States is a “Debtor” located “in the District of Columbia.” UCC 9.307.
I could be wrong, yet the above authorities lead me to believe that the United States, the Republic, has been superceded by the Federal Corporation with the same name, and although the corporation portends to be a democracy, its jurisdiction should end with the boundries of Federal Property. This premise sat me to ponder that the Federal power is too far removed from myself to ever apply to me – unless the corporate governments of state, county, etc., are somehow under the military power of the U.S. and its creditors.
Later, I practically stumbled over the U.S. Senate report 93-549 93rd Congress 1st session 1973, which suggests:
     “A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule…and, in the U.S., actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have – from at least the Civil War, in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.”
     At this point in the inquiry, I was still failing to see the whole picture, I mean, yeah, the president can declare an emergency but I still do not get where I gave up my ‘sovereignty,’ so I dug deeper. What president declared an emergency and hy? The above quoted Senate Report suggested the emergency rule goes back to the Civil War. Also, I’m told that in 1850-61, the representatives for the Southern states of the union, walked out of the congressional session, creating ‘sine die’ (without day).
     So, some would say that the republican form of government ceased to exist as a result of the sine die, leaving only a portion of the legislative democracy (private), and the executive branch of government to make the day to day decisions. An emergency form a government would have kept things operating to an extent. It appears Abraham Lincoln became President, and while still under a National Emergency and Martial Law the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were enacted under Executive Order. Those old Executive Orders had no expiration date and are likely to remain in effect. There are whispers (which I have yet to prove or disprove, suggesting that when the South seceded from the Union, Martial law was necessary, so there may be some truth to suppositions such as: While after the Civil War, Congress (what was left) proceeded as if business was usual and the emergency powers remained at work to be utilized behind the scenes when needed; that under military law, the several states lost their true sovereignty and were subject exclusively to the Federal Corporation from that point on.
     The foregoing seems to demonstrate some of the circumstances placing the states under de facto control of the Fedcorp, but I’m not ‘state’ so I feel like I’m again staring ‘square one’ right in the face…until I discovered information about the governmental insolvency of 1933 (Great Depression). Long before the Constitution was created, the money of exchange everyone in the New World used, was gold and silver coin, or drafts promising to pay in that specie – per the Coinage Act of 1792 (as mentioned in the post on “Borrowing”). The event which precipitated the bankruptcy/depression, as it turns out, the Treasury didn’t have gold in reserve to cover the demands made by anyone holding negotiable power. As a result, the 73rd U.S. Congress proposed House Joint Resolution 193 (HJR0192), and on page 83 in the first paragraph reads:
     “Under the new la the money is issued to the banks in return to government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and bankers acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and property of all the people in the nation. The money so issued will not have one penny of gold coverage behind it…” (See Title 31 USC 463 also), “Federal Reserve Notes are Deb Obligations of the United States Government.” (found in Title 12 USC 411).
     That being the case, it was in the interest of the members of the corporate government to obligate all the people to the debt because: Take any large amount of debt and divide it among a small number of people/debtors like a few hundred Congressmen), and those Congressmen would be solely responsible for the satisfaction of that debt under the pre-1933 law, in my opinion. Where the credits of the nation is concerned, Congress had to figure a way to ‘dilute’, if you will, their own portion of the debt by making every single soul then existing or yet to be born, a part to the debt. More people ‘paying’ equals less actual debt per individual. And if I was in their position, I’d likely want to “share” the debt also.
     From the law I’ve read, it appears the emergency powers enabled the Fedcorp to obtain the consent of each and every one of us via our unknowing participation in/with government, like when a perceived government instant benefit is accepted. Evidence President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” as one example, and perhaps the recent “financial bailout” as well (and a whole lot more). I’ll get back to “acceptance” in due time, but first, let me say that: Corporation or not, military power or not, “…the Congress cannot revoke the sovereign power of the people.” Perry vs. United States, 294 US 330,353 (1935). And: “There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: all else is withheld.” Julliard vs. Greenman, 110 US 420.
Using my own case as an experiment and comprehending the fact that the particular statue law I was charged under was the Texas Penal Code, I noted within the code and other) the recurring term: “person.” This term is applied in such a way that causes one to think (due to common usage), the word ‘person’ could be me or any other living human being. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, “in Common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not to construed to do so.” U.S. vs United Mine Workers, 330 US 258 (1947).
     Nor can a sovereign human be, “…named in any statue merely as a ‘person’ or ‘any person’. “Wills vs. Michigan State Police, 105 Led 2d 45 (1989). Yet, as in my own case, we find that government is routinely applying statues directly to private human beings via every code or rule imaginable. Contradictory, is it not?
History shows that, even in a permanent state of ‘national emergency,’ contractual obligations are made and enforced among parties whether local or international, commercial or non-commercial, public or private, civil or criminal. Where is the international-commercial-agreement which unconscionable replaces my sovereignty with an obligation that subjects me to arbitrary rule which are so inherently obese with contradictions, the proponent corporations may construe those rules however the occasion suits them? Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (DFR) at 72.11 tells us that, “All the following crimes are commercial crimes…” and then goes on to list my own accusation along with others. Evaluating that federal rules indicate that crimes are ‘commercial’, on a whim I checked the la regarding commercial transactions, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and, as sure as I’m sitting here, an “agreement” means: The bargain of the parties in fact, as found in the language or inferred from other circumstances…”. Based on that premise, it may be reasonable to conclude that I have been subject to one or more ‘implied’ agreements as ‘inferred’ by my ‘unknowing’ participation in certain commercial transactions. (See: UCC 1.201 (b) (3), agreement). Unfortunately, I may have unknowingly ratified the agreements via “acceptance” as defined in UCC 2.606: “When a part fails to make a effected rejection…”
     The UCC also defines the word “person”: “An individual, corporation, business, trust, estate, trust, partnership, LLC… or any other legal or commercial entity.”
     Then I had an epiphany – the term “people” as used in the cited cases above, refers to a group of sovereign humans in a collective sense, but also necessarily includes the single sovereign human standing alone, because it takes a group of solitary humans to make up a “people”! Take this as an example, what if all the ‘people’ in this nation suddenly disappeared except for a solitary soul – would that human by him/herself be any less ‘sovereign’ in that case?
     Webster’s definition of the noun, “sovereign” is: a ruler with supreme power; a monarch.” As an adjective “Possessing supreme jurisdiction or authority.”
     On the other hand, the adjective, “individual” is related as: “Of, for or relating to a single human being.” It would appear that the term individual indicates entity which is of ‘lesser’ status than the sovereign.
Looking again at the UCC’s definition of “person” and considering the undeniable commercial context, we find that the word is listed along with other corporate constructs which are not alive yet they have legal rights. That thought led me believe that; not only is the “individual” of a lesser status than a “sovereign,” but an ‘individual/person’ may be a human conducting commercial transactions in a non-sovereign capacity! (via a strawman). Otherwise, why wouldn’t the code actually use the term ‘sovereign’ or ‘human’ instead of ‘individual’? All the UCC corporations are non-sovereign, i.e.: created by the State, whereas a Sovereign is created by God. Does that also mean that only state created entities may interact/conduct intercourse with other corporations/state agencies? Is any transaction in that type of scenario, a commercial transaction?
My on conclusion is this: A ‘person’ as defined in the Code is not a term that would directly apply to a living human, which raises a few more questions that Id like to address in a future installment. Feel free to check my work and challenge the reason.
     Until next time, try to be less of a ‘person’ but a better ‘human’.