Articles
Cases
Donate
| Please consider supporting the lifetime research of Lee Brobst with a charitable donation. Thank you. |
Written by Lee Brobst
lee.eagleeye.brobst@gmail.com
May 01, 2009
ARE YOU SUBJECT TO ©
Article Index
Part ll
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part 2 of 5
The federal Government’s incorporated powers under Article I of the Constitution
have been established within the 10 square mile area in Washington D.C. All the
unincorporated federal powers such as the Environmental Protection Agency,
Department of Energy, Health and Human Services, etc. are outside the 10 square
mile area. They get their powers from the people who have volunteered by
contract (public policy), into the unincorporated association under Article IV
Section 3 cl.2.
Although the Federal Reserve System is a private banking entity it is within the 10
square mile area because the Federal Government is in a contract with the
Federal Reserve to produce the nation’s money supply because there is no
prohibition in the U.S. Constitution to prohibit such a contract.
Article IV Section 3 cl.2 gives Congress authority to enact statutes such as
Environmental Protection Agency, Endangered Species Act, etc., that become the
penal clauses of the contract that you have used to enter interstate commerce via
private international law. When you don't perform, an agency/agent cites you, and
the courts through an administrative procedure, causes you to perform to the
contract through fines or whatever. Your performance is required to support this
public debt/credit system. Despite the debt/credit system, you cannot be forced
into a debt/credit relationship with an unincorporated banking association. You
can operate in the Law within the bounds of the incorporated state without all the
controlling conditions of Congress and all the agencies of the state and local
governments applying to you, but you must refrain from creating the liability.
Article IV Section 3 cl.1 of the Constitution is the power given to Congress to deal
with incorporated states.
[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.
Article IV Section 3 cl.2 is the power given to Congress to deal with unincorporated
states.
[clause 2] The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful
Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the
United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to
Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
The Supreme Court ruling on the property clause of Article IV Section 3 cl.2 stated:
Literally, the word “territory”, as here used, signifies property, since the language
is not “territory or property”, but “territory or other property.” There thus arises an
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 real estate 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,
537 (1933). [Bold emphasis added]
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.
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. This decision is based upon
the spirit and true meaning of the Constitution as determined by Congress
under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. [bold underline emphasis added]
The Court, in Kansas v. Colorado. 206 U.S. 46 (1906) at 89 speaking of Article IV,
Section 3 stated, "it is a grant of power to the United States of control over its
property. That is implied by the words 'territory or other property ‘ ...it has been
referred to in some decisions as granting political and legislative control over the
territories as distinguished from the states of the Union."[Bold emphasis added]
The Court held in First National Bank v. Yankton County. 101 U.S. 129, that "A
territorial government is an agency employed by Congress". and further; The
organic act of a territory takes the place of a constitution, as the fundamental law
of local government. Congress is supreme of its governmental authority has all the
powers of the people of the United States, except such as have been expressly or
by implication reserved by the prohibitions of the Constitution.
A "territory" of the United States is a portion of the country not included within the
limits of any state and not yet admitted as a state into the Union, but organized
under the laws of Congress. People of State of New York ex reI. Kopel v. Bingham,
81 N.E. 773, 89 N.Y. 124, affirmed 211 U.S. 468, See also, 148 F. 505, 507, citing
De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, In re Lane,135 U.S. 447, Ex Parte Morgan, 20 F.
298, 305.
In McAllister v. United States 141 U.S. 174, (1891), the Supreme Court held that
territorial courts are not established under the authority of Article III of the
Constitution, but rather are legislative courts established under the property clause.
And in Williams v. United States 289 U.S. 553, (1933), the Court observed that the
authority granted to territorial courts to hear and decide controversies arising in
the territories of the United States is judicial power, but is not that judicial power
granted by § 1 and defined by § 2 of Article III of the Constitution; rather it is
derived from the property clause.
What the McAllister and Williams Court is saying is, the judicial Power (small “j”
capital “P”)
is the Article III courts give access to the general (commercial) federal common law
whereas; the other Judicial power (capital “J” and small “p”) as mentioned in the
11th amendment you are a “person” treated as “other property “subject to” Art. IV
Sec. 3 cl.2 and the 14th amendment.
In other words, you are the creation of the government and there is no such thing
as the separation
of powers doctrine. Check the spelling in your copy of the constitution. Are you
beginning to
understand federal mandates and why the courts render the rulings they hand
down.
It must also be mentioned here that Title 18 sec. 5 US Criminal Code to wit:
The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all
places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, except the Canal Zone. [Bold print emphasis underline added]
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). See also Sere v. Pitot, 10 US (6 Cr) 332, 336
1810); Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 US 15, 44 (1885), which will then be invested with
all legislative power except as limited by the Constitution of the United States and
acts of Congress, Walker v. New Mexico & S.P.R. Co., 165 US 593, 604 (1897);
Simms v. Simms 175 US 162, 163, (1899); Wagoner v. Evans, 170 US 588, 591
(1898).
[Congress serves a dual function, i.e., enacting local laws under Article IV Sect. 3
cl.2 or general laws pertaining to Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 and Art. I ]. The
constitutional guarantees of private rights are applicable in territories which have
been made a part of the United States by congressional action. Downes v. Bidwell,
182 US 244, 271 (1901) but not in unincorporated territories. Downes v.
Bidwell 182 US 244. [Bold emphasis added]
The Constitution is a 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.
In fact, the Constitution of U.S. does not deal with individuals, it is a limit on the
powers of Governments whereas; the Bill of Rights pertains to individuals. The
first 10 Amendments deal with the incorporated side under the general
(commercial) federal common law of Swift v. Tyson 16 Peters 1 (1842). In other
words, interstate commerce under the general (commercial) federal common law is
still available under Swift despite Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, (1938) to
those who are free of diversity of citizenship under the 14th amendment with its
debt/credit. In the May 1984 issue of Harvard Law Review, Vol. 97 No. 7 noted: that
whether Erie RR v. Tompkins supra, or Swift v Tyson supra, is to apply is a
contractual right up to the individual.
Decided the same day as Erie Railroad supra, the Court in Hinderlider v. La Plata
304 US 92 noted: “Where there are no state statutes or case decisions that the
Federal Courts may rely on, then we may say that there is a federal common law
specifically created by the Federal Courts themselves and applicable to those
areas where State laws cannot be relied upon.” If the common law (Anglo-
American) is nothing else, it is the history of the struggle of trial by jury against the
civil law of the Roman (private international law) and Germanic Empires. Law that
is ministerial and inquisitory is not “the common law” … it is the civil law of
Rome and Germany. Every allusion in D'Oench, Duhme & Co., Inc. v. Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation 315 U.S. 447 is to “The common law,” not to civil
law. Take note that the Roman civil law is now called under the conflict of laws
“private international law”. The reason is a story in and of itself that we will not
delve into. Does George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1770-1831 and Karl Marx 1818-
1883 sound familiar??? The rest of the amendments deal with private international
law of the unincorporated association. Article IV Section 3 cl.2 gives the
government the authority to regulate unincorporated associations
through what is also known as local law. As commerce began to explode, the
founding fathers knew, and is the reason Ben Franklin said, “we have given you a
Republic, the question is, can you keep it?”; that the people would be more
interested in making money than producing money. Consequently, the “Standard”
lawful money in “Payment” of Debt in the Common Law of “the State” i.e., public
money for private debt that belonged to the people individually as sovereigns. To
the contrary, there is now a debt/credit system in “discharge” of debt in equity (no
twelve man jury) among the people of the several federal states under private
international law, i.e., private money for public debt. Under the U.S. Constitution, a
strong central Government is designed to protect the grounded substance of “the
states” from the unincorporated associations, i.e., private international law. Had
we remained under the Articles of Confederation, and went bankrupt in 1933, we
would have fallen into the clutches of foreign investors and their country’s foreign
laws to which there would have been no escape and no return to the common law.
Because of Article I Section 10 the debt would have been subject to a bilateral
agreement, and the debt, by the law of nations, follows the laws of the domicile of
the creditor. As it now stands, the people have control of the debt and can abolish
the debt when they are ready. The people have reinsured each other by contract
in a debtor/creditor relationship that is a one sided unilateral contract in the world
of make believe under Title 15 Trade and Commerce. Is there a vast conspiracy?
Yes, but it is not the vast conspiracy everybody thinks it is. It is a conspiracy of the
people against the grounded substance of the states through commercial law.
The founders had to put in a protection devise to protect the substance of the
grounded substance of the states as evidenced by Article I Section 10 against
these unincorporated associations created under Article IV Section 3 cl.2. In other
words, the federal Government under the Constitution is bound to protect the
grounded substance of “the states”, but at the same time preserves your right to
enter into private international law.
“. . . for the sake of distinction from the other branch or portion of English law, be
called the "territorial" or ‘local’ law of England. This territorial law constitutes
indeed so much the oldest and most important part of English law that it
has been constantly taken to be, and treated as, the whole of the law of
the land. Blackstone's Commentaries, for example, though written with the
avowed object of describing the whole of the ‘law of England’ contain no mention of
any rules which do not belong to the territorial or local law. . . . . For the term ‘law
of a given country’ has, at least, two meanings. It may mean, and this is its most
proper sense, every rule enforced by the Courts of that country. It may mean,
from LEADING CASES IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW on the other hand, and
this is a very usual sense, that part of the rules enforced by the Courts of a given
country which makes up the ‘local' or ‘territorial’ law of a country.” Quoting, by John
W. Dwyer, Chapter I, NATURE OF THE SUBJECT, pp. 4, 5, Callaghan Co. (1904).
A local law is one which operates over a particular locality instead of over the
whole territory of the state. Ulrich v. Beatty, 216 N.E.2d 737, 746. One which
relates to particular persons or things or to particular persons or things of
a class or which operates on or over a portion of a class instead of all of the class.
In re Annexation of Reno Quartermaster Depot Military Reservation to,
Independent School Dist. No.34. Canadian County, Okl., 69 P.2d 659, 662. [Bold
emphasis added] [Particular persons or things of a class meaning 14th
amendment “persons” or things i.e., a debt res.] or strawman. (more on strawman
infra). One whose operation is confined within territorial limits, other than those of
the whole state or any properly constituted class or locality therein. State v. Kallas,
94 P.2d 414, 420; Ravitz v. Steurele, 257 S.W.2d 360, 364. Whole state refers to
“the state” as opposed to “this state”.
SOCIAL SECURITY THE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST
Being there is no prohibition under Article IV Sec. 3 or any other provisions of the
Constitution to prohibit the people from forming an association of new
unincorporated several federal states. As noted in Article IV supra, 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; a resulting or implied
(charitable) trust is formed by operation of law. (5) That when said “persons” try to
unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of other members of the association; the
government commences a court action under local law (the association) whereby
the court constructs a trust based upon a intangible debt res or strawman. The
court creates a quasi in rem jurisdiction i.e., attaching the res while moving against
the person or strawman This term originated under the ancient rules of admiralty-
maritime law. More on admiralty-maritime infra, “or as current thought has it,
there is a presumption of a gift for charitable purposes where no
consideration or use is mentioned; thus, that “person” as a member of the
association is liable on the principle of agency.” See UNINCORPORATED
ASSOCIATIONS Chapter V, Non-Profit Associations, pp. 199, 208 by Sidney
Wrightington of the Boston Bar. Little, Brown & Co. Publisher, Boston (1916). [Bold
emphasis added].
From the book THE LAW RELATING TO UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS by
Dennis Lloyd, Street & Maxwell, London, (1938) it is read: “It is an axiomatic
proposition in the law of contract that the agreement of the parties cannot affect
the legal position of other persons who were not parties to the contract. As
regards them the contract is res inter alios acta and of no effect. This rule has
important consequences as regards voluntarily associations, or it means that no
agreement between the members of such an association can affect the rights of
others not parties to the agreement. The members of an unincorporated society,
for example, agree that their personal liability for the transactions of the society
shall be limited to a certain sum. Though this will be binding on the members inter
se, it can have no effect whatever on third parties who have not consented to the
limitation of liability, and as regards these, the members will be liable to the full
extent. . . . .
English law, however, has been more fortunate in possessing a further legal
relationship which could be established by agreement and which enabled objects
to be achieved which were beyond the reach of contract. This relationship, which
has come to be called the trust, has played a great role in enabling associations
to form and maintain them in a satisfactory legal position without being
incorporated, at times when the State was most hostile towards corporations”
(Footnotes omitted.) (Bold italics emphasis added).
Association is “confederacy or union for particular purpose, good or ill. This term
is used throughout the United States to signify a body of persons united without a
charter, but upon the methods and forms used by incorporated bodies, for the
prosecution of some common enterprise. It also enters into the names bestowed
by the legislatures upon many corporations. In this connection it is used without
any very uniform discrimination as to its precise meaning, but seems to be on the
whole preferred for bodies which are not vested with full and perfect corporate
rights and powers.” Allen v. Steven’s, 54 N.Y.S. 8, 23, 33 App.Div. 485.
“An indefinite or uncertain trust res is fatal to the trust as no subject matter
whatever.” Wilce v. Van Anden, 358, 94 N.E. 42, 140 Am.St.Rep. 212, 21 Ann.
Cas. 153, LAW OF TRUSTS, 5th ed. by Bogart at p. 72 (1973).
“An unincorporated association at common law is not a legal person, has not the
capacity to receive title to property, and hence cannot be a trustee.” Restatement,
Trusts, Second §§ 89-100. LAW OF TRUSTS, 5th ed. by Bogart at p. 90 (1973).
[underline added] You as a “person” have only a certificate of title to your property
because you never “paid” in law. See Stanek v. White supra.
Now you know the reason why the 14th Amendment reads: “and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside.” Despite what Congress did in regards HJR 192 and to
“discharge” debt, Congress did what it had to do. As mentioned above, people
became more interested in making money than producing money. According to the
Congressional Record in reference to the suspension of our national “Standard”
money, there were more demands placed on the future delivery of gold than there
was gold in the treasury.
Being you are insolvent or bankrupt you become primarily a U.S. citizen and
resident. The term "resident” is often used in the sense of "domicile" as in case of
insolvency statutes, [HJR 192, 48 Stat 113] . . . , and questions of jurisdiction.
People v. Platt, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 454; De Meli v. De Meli 120 N.Y. 485; Ayer v.
Weeks, 18 Atl. 1108. [Bold italics added.] From DICTIONARY OF WORD ORIGINS
by Joseph T. Shipley, 1945. 1995 Barnes and Noble books. ISBN 0-88029-751-4
case bound. ISBN 1-56619-826-7 paperback. The word reside, see subsidy.
Subside, subsidy. Subsidy is a thing sitting nearby until needed: from L. sub,
under + sidere, from sedere, sess-, to sit. It was applied first to the Roman military
reserves, which waited (kneeling) in the background until called into action.
Subside is from the same source. . . . [See also the term res, or strawman].
In other words, you have given up being primarily a State Citizen to become
primarily a U.S. citizen to become part of the vested public interest in public policy’s
private debt/credit system. Said debt/credit system does not primarily deal in
currency that is legal tender or lawful money of the United States under Article I
but, under private international law of Article IV Section 3 cl.2 for the sake of
convenience and expediency.6
You cannot be compelled to be a debtor/creditor against your will. The only way
you can be compelled to perform outside the incorporated states is by CONTRACT
law, unilateral or otherwise, or by giving a gift in trust. In other words, if you have
contracted to perform as a debtor/creditor to the unincorporated side of the
banking association, the Constitution provides no protection with absolute property
rights. Those absolute property rights are under the letter and strict meaning of
the law, i.e., federal (commercial) common law. Only relative rights, i.e., rights
divided among the communal members are under the spirit and true meaning as
invoked by Congress using private international law. The courts then enforce your
right to contract. When you go into the courts without the proper evidence and
argument, the courts construct a trust based upon unjust enrichment. The court
presumes you have taken on a privilege in the “discharge” of debt in exchange for
being a debtor/creditor in equity as a 14th Amendment citizen residing in “a
territory.”
5 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.
6 Huber on “Conflict of Laws” makes it very clear beyond doubt in “Praelect” pt. 2.
bk. 1, tit, 3, n. 2 that any state created rights based on convenience and utility is
not binding obligation or duty. Paul Voet, Huber, and John Voet all agree that laws
that have extra-territorial effect rest entirely on comity. P. Voet, Statutis s. 4, c. 2,
n. 7. [See H.J.R. 192 supra, also Nortz v. U.S. 294 317 (1935). [Bold underline
emphasis added.]
Foreign law can have no effect ispo jure outside the territory of the enacting state.
It must be recognized or accepted, that is, incorporated by the law of the forum.
This is Hubers doctrine in essence. This is also the stand point of the Anglo
American law. See Pillet, “principles de droit international prive” Paris and
Grenable, 1903; Zitelman, INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT, Leipzig, Vol. 1 (2nd
ed) 1912, Vol. 2 (1st ed.), 1903. See also Davies, THE INFLUENCE OF HUBERS
DE CONFLICTU LEGUM ON ENGLISH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, 18 Brit. Y.
B. Int. L. 49 (1937); Lorenzen, HUBERS DE LORENZEN, SELECTED ARTICLES
ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, 136 (1947). Cf. Anton, THE INTRODUCTION INTO
ENGLISH PRACTICE OF CONTINENTAL THEORIES ON THE CONFLICT OF
LAWS, 5 Int. & Comp. L.Q. 534 at 539 (1956). [Bold underline emphasis added.]
“Having considered the principles of the law of nations, and the reciprocal
obligations of the states under the confederation.” Said the Chief Justice for the
Court:
“It is true, that the laws of a particular country, have in themselves no extra-
territorial force, no coercive operation; but by the consent of nations, they acquire
an influence and obligation, and, in many instances, become conclusive
throughout the world. ... From the nature of the act then, it appears to be founded
upon equitable grounds, for general and just purposes; it ought therefore to be
regarded in all other countries, and should enjoy that weight, in our decisions,
which it naturally derives from general conveniency, expediency, justice, and
humanity. For, mutual conveniency, policy, the consent of nations, and the
general principles of justice form a code which pervades all nations and must be
everywhere acknowledged and pursued.” 1 Dall. (Pa.) 232. Followed in
Thompson v. Young, 1 Dall, (Phila Co.) 294 (1788). Cf. Gorgerat v. McCarty, 1
Dall. (Phila. Co.) 366 (1788). The interesting status of the law on this subject
before Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat (24 U.S.) 213 (1827), is well described in
Ingraham, A VIEW OF THE INSOLVENT LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA”, 2d ed., 178
(1827), and Dorsey, AMERICAN LAW OF INSOLVENCY 161 (1832). Camp v.
Lockwood, 1 Dall. (Phila Co.) 393 (1788). [Bold emphasis added]
The plaintiff, an inhabitant of Connecticut, had joined the British during the
Revolution and removed to Halifax. By a decision of the County Court of 1779,
rendered under the Connecticut Forfeiture Act of 1778, his estate was declared
forfeited for the benefit of Connecticut. The defendant, likewise an inhabitant of
Connecticut, was indebted to the plaintiff. Not having paid the debt either to the
State of Connecticut or the plaintiff, he was sued by the latter after the war in
Pennsylvania whereto he (the defendant) had removed. Jared Ingersoll—it will be
recalled that he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention—argued for the
defendant that, because of the confiscation, the plaintiff had no right to sue.
William Rawle, who was on the other side, took the view that the Connecticut
confiscation law and decree were not entitled to effect in Pennsylvania.
Both lawyers made full use of the few decisions and even fewer writings then
available dealing with the extra-territorial effect of legislation and conflicts problems
in general. Arguing the principle of territoriality, Rawle quoted Vattel for the
proposition that one nation cannot intermeddle with the government of another, Id
at 396, Vattel, Law of Nations (1760). A collisio legum would arise, and the
universal rule, as stated by Huber’s third axiom, was that the laws and interests of
the state having jurisdiction of the cause shall be preferred. 1 Dall., 393 at 397,
Huber’s de conflictu legum, In HUBER, PRAELECTIONES JURIS CIVILIS pt. 2, bk. 1,
tit. 3 (1689). 3 Dall. 370 n. (trans.) (1797). In reply, Ingersoll observed:
“that he did not controvert the general doctrine advanced by the opposite counsel
[sic], that the law of nations is the law of nature applied to nations, and that one
sovereign power cannot be bound by another, but he distinguished between the
necessary, and the voluntary law of nations, which arises ex comitate. Vatt. pref.
12 Ibid. p. 6. and insisted that the law of nations actually enforced, are everywhere
obligatory, unless they interfere with the independency of another Legislature. 2
Hub. 26. for, common conveniency renders it necessary to give a certain degree of
force to the statutes of foreign nations. 2 Ld. Kaim. Prin. Eq. 350, 360. 1 Dall.
(Phila. Co.) 393 at 396 (1788). [Bold emphasis added]
He further remarked: “ ... the operation and effect of a sentence, or judgment, of a
foreign Court cannot surely be more binding than the act of a foreign legislature;
and these, ex comitate et jure gentium, are in many cases final. 1 Black. Rep. 258,
262. Vatt. lib. 2. c. 7. sec. 84. p. 147. 1 Dall. (Phila Co.) 393 at 396 (1788).
And he concluded:
“It is true, that the American States have hithereto been held by a very slight
confederacy; but what remedy is to be pursued? Shall we, if the knot is loose,
make it still looser? ...[W]hen a more perfect reason of experience would justify
such a construction; and the United States, though individually sovereign and
independent, must admit, not only the voluntary law of nations but a peculiar law
resulting from their relative situations.” Id. at 389. [Bold emphasis added]
The law of nations dealt in reality with bilateral contracts where there was payment
of debt and a meeting of the minds, therefore everybody knew the terms of the
contact. This was the rules of the ancient law merchant under the term “that a
merchants word is as good as gold.” All such contracts where conducted without
the intervention of third parties such as the governments of the world.
To the contrary, the unincorporated association joins the United Nations in the
spirit world of make believe of debt/credit where nobody is “paid” in law, there is
just goods and services of compelled performances based upon unilateral
contracts. In addition to other taxes, said contracts will be taxed on a fairy land
concoction of carbon footprints that the Congress will manage and enforce, not
through Article III courts, but though it’s legislative courts under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.
2. Carbon footprints is a United Nations scam to rob you of your wealth and give
most of it to the pirates who run the United Nations under the guise of helping the
poor and down trodden. All we need is look at our own welfare system that has
received trillions of dollars and we have more homeless and down trodden than we
ever had.
The United Nations OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM for the Iraq people was another
example of greed and corruption by the United Nations. Most if not all of the
money for that program was siphoned of by Sadam Hussein and United Nations
bureaucrats and never got to the people it was intended to help.
Regarding the scam of carbon footprints, Bruce Cathie was a commercial airline
pilot for New Zealand Airways. He became a pilot in 1952 and witnessed many
encounters with UFO’s, some of the sightings with witnesses. He documented in
detail where, when, and what they were doing when he started to realize that he
was seeing these UFO’s in the same longitude and latitude of the earth. After he
retired he devoted his life exploring the earth’s magnetic lines of force and has
discovered many astonishing facts that have been proven with mathematics.
Anything in the world of reality can be proven with mathematics. He discovered that
the earth’s magnetic lines of force are contrary to the conventional thinking. He
goes on to prove his findings by using mathematics. He retired then devoted his
life exploring the universe. In his book THE HARMONIC CONQUEST OF SPACE,
which by the way has nothing to with global warming, natural or man made, stated:
“Everything, no matter what its form on this planet exists by reason of magnetic
lines of force. Cathie proves his statement with mathematics. Albert Einstein
proved his theory about atomic energy with mathematics. In order for man to
cause global warming he first has to change the earth’s magnetic lines of force and
to do so he has to have a mathematical formula otherwise, its an impossibility.
Global warming alarmist are not involved in the earth’s realities that can be proven
with mathematics but instead live in a world of their illusions of the way they think
things are or the way they think things should be.
Neil Boortz on his radio talk show off the same name that originates out of Atlanta,
Georgia, made the statement on June 4, 2008 that the environmental movement in
the U.S. is controlled by former red caps that came to U.S. after the collapse of the
old Soviet Union. The cold war failed to conquer U.S., now the former Soviet
agents are using the environmental movement to choke off the economic engine of
U.S. So far so good.
<< Prev - Next >>
Last Updated on Thursday, 07 May 2009 05:44
lee.eagleeye.brobst@gmail.com
May 01, 2009
ARE YOU SUBJECT TO ©
Article Index
Part ll
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part 2 of 5
The federal Government’s incorporated powers under Article I of the Constitution
have been established within the 10 square mile area in Washington D.C. All the
unincorporated federal powers such as the Environmental Protection Agency,
Department of Energy, Health and Human Services, etc. are outside the 10 square
mile area. They get their powers from the people who have volunteered by
contract (public policy), into the unincorporated association under Article IV
Section 3 cl.2.
Although the Federal Reserve System is a private banking entity it is within the 10
square mile area because the Federal Government is in a contract with the
Federal Reserve to produce the nation’s money supply because there is no
prohibition in the U.S. Constitution to prohibit such a contract.
Article IV Section 3 cl.2 gives Congress authority to enact statutes such as
Environmental Protection Agency, Endangered Species Act, etc., that become the
penal clauses of the contract that you have used to enter interstate commerce via
private international law. When you don't perform, an agency/agent cites you, and
the courts through an administrative procedure, causes you to perform to the
contract through fines or whatever. Your performance is required to support this
public debt/credit system. Despite the debt/credit system, you cannot be forced
into a debt/credit relationship with an unincorporated banking association. You
can operate in the Law within the bounds of the incorporated state without all the
controlling conditions of Congress and all the agencies of the state and local
governments applying to you, but you must refrain from creating the liability.
Article IV Section 3 cl.1 of the Constitution is the power given to Congress to deal
with incorporated states.
[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.
Article IV Section 3 cl.2 is the power given to Congress to deal with unincorporated
states.
[clause 2] The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful
Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the
United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to
Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
The Supreme Court ruling on the property clause of Article IV Section 3 cl.2 stated:
Literally, the word “territory”, as here used, signifies property, since the language
is not “territory or property”, but “territory or other property.” There thus arises an
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 real estate 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,
537 (1933). [Bold emphasis added]
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.
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. This decision is based upon
the spirit and true meaning of the Constitution as determined by Congress
under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. [bold underline emphasis added]
The Court, in Kansas v. Colorado. 206 U.S. 46 (1906) at 89 speaking of Article IV,
Section 3 stated, "it is a grant of power to the United States of control over its
property. That is implied by the words 'territory or other property ‘ ...it has been
referred to in some decisions as granting political and legislative control over the
territories as distinguished from the states of the Union."[Bold emphasis added]
The Court held in First National Bank v. Yankton County. 101 U.S. 129, that "A
territorial government is an agency employed by Congress". and further; The
organic act of a territory takes the place of a constitution, as the fundamental law
of local government. Congress is supreme of its governmental authority has all the
powers of the people of the United States, except such as have been expressly or
by implication reserved by the prohibitions of the Constitution.
A "territory" of the United States is a portion of the country not included within the
limits of any state and not yet admitted as a state into the Union, but organized
under the laws of Congress. People of State of New York ex reI. Kopel v. Bingham,
81 N.E. 773, 89 N.Y. 124, affirmed 211 U.S. 468, See also, 148 F. 505, 507, citing
De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, In re Lane,135 U.S. 447, Ex Parte Morgan, 20 F.
298, 305.
In McAllister v. United States 141 U.S. 174, (1891), the Supreme Court held that
territorial courts are not established under the authority of Article III of the
Constitution, but rather are legislative courts established under the property clause.
And in Williams v. United States 289 U.S. 553, (1933), the Court observed that the
authority granted to territorial courts to hear and decide controversies arising in
the territories of the United States is judicial power, but is not that judicial power
granted by § 1 and defined by § 2 of Article III of the Constitution; rather it is
derived from the property clause.
What the McAllister and Williams Court is saying is, the judicial Power (small “j”
capital “P”)
is the Article III courts give access to the general (commercial) federal common law
whereas; the other Judicial power (capital “J” and small “p”) as mentioned in the
11th amendment you are a “person” treated as “other property “subject to” Art. IV
Sec. 3 cl.2 and the 14th amendment.
In other words, you are the creation of the government and there is no such thing
as the separation
of powers doctrine. Check the spelling in your copy of the constitution. Are you
beginning to
understand federal mandates and why the courts render the rulings they hand
down.
It must also be mentioned here that Title 18 sec. 5 US Criminal Code to wit:
The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all
places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, except the Canal Zone. [Bold print emphasis underline added]
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). See also Sere v. Pitot, 10 US (6 Cr) 332, 336
1810); Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 US 15, 44 (1885), which will then be invested with
all legislative power except as limited by the Constitution of the United States and
acts of Congress, Walker v. New Mexico & S.P.R. Co., 165 US 593, 604 (1897);
Simms v. Simms 175 US 162, 163, (1899); Wagoner v. Evans, 170 US 588, 591
(1898).
[Congress serves a dual function, i.e., enacting local laws under Article IV Sect. 3
cl.2 or general laws pertaining to Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 and Art. I ]. The
constitutional guarantees of private rights are applicable in territories which have
been made a part of the United States by congressional action. Downes v. Bidwell,
182 US 244, 271 (1901) but not in unincorporated territories. Downes v.
Bidwell 182 US 244. [Bold emphasis added]
The Constitution is a 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.
In fact, the Constitution of U.S. does not deal with individuals, it is a limit on the
powers of Governments whereas; the Bill of Rights pertains to individuals. The
first 10 Amendments deal with the incorporated side under the general
(commercial) federal common law of Swift v. Tyson 16 Peters 1 (1842). In other
words, interstate commerce under the general (commercial) federal common law is
still available under Swift despite Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, (1938) to
those who are free of diversity of citizenship under the 14th amendment with its
debt/credit. In the May 1984 issue of Harvard Law Review, Vol. 97 No. 7 noted: that
whether Erie RR v. Tompkins supra, or Swift v Tyson supra, is to apply is a
contractual right up to the individual.
Decided the same day as Erie Railroad supra, the Court in Hinderlider v. La Plata
304 US 92 noted: “Where there are no state statutes or case decisions that the
Federal Courts may rely on, then we may say that there is a federal common law
specifically created by the Federal Courts themselves and applicable to those
areas where State laws cannot be relied upon.” If the common law (Anglo-
American) is nothing else, it is the history of the struggle of trial by jury against the
civil law of the Roman (private international law) and Germanic Empires. Law that
is ministerial and inquisitory is not “the common law” … it is the civil law of
Rome and Germany. Every allusion in D'Oench, Duhme & Co., Inc. v. Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation 315 U.S. 447 is to “The common law,” not to civil
law. Take note that the Roman civil law is now called under the conflict of laws
“private international law”. The reason is a story in and of itself that we will not
delve into. Does George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1770-1831 and Karl Marx 1818-
1883 sound familiar??? The rest of the amendments deal with private international
law of the unincorporated association. Article IV Section 3 cl.2 gives the
government the authority to regulate unincorporated associations
through what is also known as local law. As commerce began to explode, the
founding fathers knew, and is the reason Ben Franklin said, “we have given you a
Republic, the question is, can you keep it?”; that the people would be more
interested in making money than producing money. Consequently, the “Standard”
lawful money in “Payment” of Debt in the Common Law of “the State” i.e., public
money for private debt that belonged to the people individually as sovereigns. To
the contrary, there is now a debt/credit system in “discharge” of debt in equity (no
twelve man jury) among the people of the several federal states under private
international law, i.e., private money for public debt. Under the U.S. Constitution, a
strong central Government is designed to protect the grounded substance of “the
states” from the unincorporated associations, i.e., private international law. Had
we remained under the Articles of Confederation, and went bankrupt in 1933, we
would have fallen into the clutches of foreign investors and their country’s foreign
laws to which there would have been no escape and no return to the common law.
Because of Article I Section 10 the debt would have been subject to a bilateral
agreement, and the debt, by the law of nations, follows the laws of the domicile of
the creditor. As it now stands, the people have control of the debt and can abolish
the debt when they are ready. The people have reinsured each other by contract
in a debtor/creditor relationship that is a one sided unilateral contract in the world
of make believe under Title 15 Trade and Commerce. Is there a vast conspiracy?
Yes, but it is not the vast conspiracy everybody thinks it is. It is a conspiracy of the
people against the grounded substance of the states through commercial law.
The founders had to put in a protection devise to protect the substance of the
grounded substance of the states as evidenced by Article I Section 10 against
these unincorporated associations created under Article IV Section 3 cl.2. In other
words, the federal Government under the Constitution is bound to protect the
grounded substance of “the states”, but at the same time preserves your right to
enter into private international law.
“. . . for the sake of distinction from the other branch or portion of English law, be
called the "territorial" or ‘local’ law of England. This territorial law constitutes
indeed so much the oldest and most important part of English law that it
has been constantly taken to be, and treated as, the whole of the law of
the land. Blackstone's Commentaries, for example, though written with the
avowed object of describing the whole of the ‘law of England’ contain no mention of
any rules which do not belong to the territorial or local law. . . . . For the term ‘law
of a given country’ has, at least, two meanings. It may mean, and this is its most
proper sense, every rule enforced by the Courts of that country. It may mean,
from LEADING CASES IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW on the other hand, and
this is a very usual sense, that part of the rules enforced by the Courts of a given
country which makes up the ‘local' or ‘territorial’ law of a country.” Quoting, by John
W. Dwyer, Chapter I, NATURE OF THE SUBJECT, pp. 4, 5, Callaghan Co. (1904).
A local law is one which operates over a particular locality instead of over the
whole territory of the state. Ulrich v. Beatty, 216 N.E.2d 737, 746. One which
relates to particular persons or things or to particular persons or things of
a class or which operates on or over a portion of a class instead of all of the class.
In re Annexation of Reno Quartermaster Depot Military Reservation to,
Independent School Dist. No.34. Canadian County, Okl., 69 P.2d 659, 662. [Bold
emphasis added] [Particular persons or things of a class meaning 14th
amendment “persons” or things i.e., a debt res.] or strawman. (more on strawman
infra). One whose operation is confined within territorial limits, other than those of
the whole state or any properly constituted class or locality therein. State v. Kallas,
94 P.2d 414, 420; Ravitz v. Steurele, 257 S.W.2d 360, 364. Whole state refers to
“the state” as opposed to “this state”.
SOCIAL SECURITY THE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST
Being there is no prohibition under Article IV Sec. 3 or any other provisions of the
Constitution to prohibit the people from forming an association of new
unincorporated several federal states. As noted in Article IV supra, 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; a resulting or implied
(charitable) trust is formed by operation of law. (5) That when said “persons” try to
unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of other members of the association; the
government commences a court action under local law (the association) whereby
the court constructs a trust based upon a intangible debt res or strawman. The
court creates a quasi in rem jurisdiction i.e., attaching the res while moving against
the person or strawman This term originated under the ancient rules of admiralty-
maritime law. More on admiralty-maritime infra, “or as current thought has it,
there is a presumption of a gift for charitable purposes where no
consideration or use is mentioned; thus, that “person” as a member of the
association is liable on the principle of agency.” See UNINCORPORATED
ASSOCIATIONS Chapter V, Non-Profit Associations, pp. 199, 208 by Sidney
Wrightington of the Boston Bar. Little, Brown & Co. Publisher, Boston (1916). [Bold
emphasis added].
From the book THE LAW RELATING TO UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS by
Dennis Lloyd, Street & Maxwell, London, (1938) it is read: “It is an axiomatic
proposition in the law of contract that the agreement of the parties cannot affect
the legal position of other persons who were not parties to the contract. As
regards them the contract is res inter alios acta and of no effect. This rule has
important consequences as regards voluntarily associations, or it means that no
agreement between the members of such an association can affect the rights of
others not parties to the agreement. The members of an unincorporated society,
for example, agree that their personal liability for the transactions of the society
shall be limited to a certain sum. Though this will be binding on the members inter
se, it can have no effect whatever on third parties who have not consented to the
limitation of liability, and as regards these, the members will be liable to the full
extent. . . . .
English law, however, has been more fortunate in possessing a further legal
relationship which could be established by agreement and which enabled objects
to be achieved which were beyond the reach of contract. This relationship, which
has come to be called the trust, has played a great role in enabling associations
to form and maintain them in a satisfactory legal position without being
incorporated, at times when the State was most hostile towards corporations”
(Footnotes omitted.) (Bold italics emphasis added).
Association is “confederacy or union for particular purpose, good or ill. This term
is used throughout the United States to signify a body of persons united without a
charter, but upon the methods and forms used by incorporated bodies, for the
prosecution of some common enterprise. It also enters into the names bestowed
by the legislatures upon many corporations. In this connection it is used without
any very uniform discrimination as to its precise meaning, but seems to be on the
whole preferred for bodies which are not vested with full and perfect corporate
rights and powers.” Allen v. Steven’s, 54 N.Y.S. 8, 23, 33 App.Div. 485.
“An indefinite or uncertain trust res is fatal to the trust as no subject matter
whatever.” Wilce v. Van Anden, 358, 94 N.E. 42, 140 Am.St.Rep. 212, 21 Ann.
Cas. 153, LAW OF TRUSTS, 5th ed. by Bogart at p. 72 (1973).
“An unincorporated association at common law is not a legal person, has not the
capacity to receive title to property, and hence cannot be a trustee.” Restatement,
Trusts, Second §§ 89-100. LAW OF TRUSTS, 5th ed. by Bogart at p. 90 (1973).
[underline added] You as a “person” have only a certificate of title to your property
because you never “paid” in law. See Stanek v. White supra.
Now you know the reason why the 14th Amendment reads: “and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside.” Despite what Congress did in regards HJR 192 and to
“discharge” debt, Congress did what it had to do. As mentioned above, people
became more interested in making money than producing money. According to the
Congressional Record in reference to the suspension of our national “Standard”
money, there were more demands placed on the future delivery of gold than there
was gold in the treasury.
Being you are insolvent or bankrupt you become primarily a U.S. citizen and
resident. The term "resident” is often used in the sense of "domicile" as in case of
insolvency statutes, [HJR 192, 48 Stat 113] . . . , and questions of jurisdiction.
People v. Platt, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 454; De Meli v. De Meli 120 N.Y. 485; Ayer v.
Weeks, 18 Atl. 1108. [Bold italics added.] From DICTIONARY OF WORD ORIGINS
by Joseph T. Shipley, 1945. 1995 Barnes and Noble books. ISBN 0-88029-751-4
case bound. ISBN 1-56619-826-7 paperback. The word reside, see subsidy.
Subside, subsidy. Subsidy is a thing sitting nearby until needed: from L. sub,
under + sidere, from sedere, sess-, to sit. It was applied first to the Roman military
reserves, which waited (kneeling) in the background until called into action.
Subside is from the same source. . . . [See also the term res, or strawman].
In other words, you have given up being primarily a State Citizen to become
primarily a U.S. citizen to become part of the vested public interest in public policy’s
private debt/credit system. Said debt/credit system does not primarily deal in
currency that is legal tender or lawful money of the United States under Article I
but, under private international law of Article IV Section 3 cl.2 for the sake of
convenience and expediency.6
You cannot be compelled to be a debtor/creditor against your will. The only way
you can be compelled to perform outside the incorporated states is by CONTRACT
law, unilateral or otherwise, or by giving a gift in trust. In other words, if you have
contracted to perform as a debtor/creditor to the unincorporated side of the
banking association, the Constitution provides no protection with absolute property
rights. Those absolute property rights are under the letter and strict meaning of
the law, i.e., federal (commercial) common law. Only relative rights, i.e., rights
divided among the communal members are under the spirit and true meaning as
invoked by Congress using private international law. The courts then enforce your
right to contract. When you go into the courts without the proper evidence and
argument, the courts construct a trust based upon unjust enrichment. The court
presumes you have taken on a privilege in the “discharge” of debt in exchange for
being a debtor/creditor in equity as a 14th Amendment citizen residing in “a
territory.”
5 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.
6 Huber on “Conflict of Laws” makes it very clear beyond doubt in “Praelect” pt. 2.
bk. 1, tit, 3, n. 2 that any state created rights based on convenience and utility is
not binding obligation or duty. Paul Voet, Huber, and John Voet all agree that laws
that have extra-territorial effect rest entirely on comity. P. Voet, Statutis s. 4, c. 2,
n. 7. [See H.J.R. 192 supra, also Nortz v. U.S. 294 317 (1935). [Bold underline
emphasis added.]
Foreign law can have no effect ispo jure outside the territory of the enacting state.
It must be recognized or accepted, that is, incorporated by the law of the forum.
This is Hubers doctrine in essence. This is also the stand point of the Anglo
American law. See Pillet, “principles de droit international prive” Paris and
Grenable, 1903; Zitelman, INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT, Leipzig, Vol. 1 (2nd
ed) 1912, Vol. 2 (1st ed.), 1903. See also Davies, THE INFLUENCE OF HUBERS
DE CONFLICTU LEGUM ON ENGLISH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, 18 Brit. Y.
B. Int. L. 49 (1937); Lorenzen, HUBERS DE LORENZEN, SELECTED ARTICLES
ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, 136 (1947). Cf. Anton, THE INTRODUCTION INTO
ENGLISH PRACTICE OF CONTINENTAL THEORIES ON THE CONFLICT OF
LAWS, 5 Int. & Comp. L.Q. 534 at 539 (1956). [Bold underline emphasis added.]
“Having considered the principles of the law of nations, and the reciprocal
obligations of the states under the confederation.” Said the Chief Justice for the
Court:
“It is true, that the laws of a particular country, have in themselves no extra-
territorial force, no coercive operation; but by the consent of nations, they acquire
an influence and obligation, and, in many instances, become conclusive
throughout the world. ... From the nature of the act then, it appears to be founded
upon equitable grounds, for general and just purposes; it ought therefore to be
regarded in all other countries, and should enjoy that weight, in our decisions,
which it naturally derives from general conveniency, expediency, justice, and
humanity. For, mutual conveniency, policy, the consent of nations, and the
general principles of justice form a code which pervades all nations and must be
everywhere acknowledged and pursued.” 1 Dall. (Pa.) 232. Followed in
Thompson v. Young, 1 Dall, (Phila Co.) 294 (1788). Cf. Gorgerat v. McCarty, 1
Dall. (Phila. Co.) 366 (1788). The interesting status of the law on this subject
before Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat (24 U.S.) 213 (1827), is well described in
Ingraham, A VIEW OF THE INSOLVENT LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA”, 2d ed., 178
(1827), and Dorsey, AMERICAN LAW OF INSOLVENCY 161 (1832). Camp v.
Lockwood, 1 Dall. (Phila Co.) 393 (1788). [Bold emphasis added]
The plaintiff, an inhabitant of Connecticut, had joined the British during the
Revolution and removed to Halifax. By a decision of the County Court of 1779,
rendered under the Connecticut Forfeiture Act of 1778, his estate was declared
forfeited for the benefit of Connecticut. The defendant, likewise an inhabitant of
Connecticut, was indebted to the plaintiff. Not having paid the debt either to the
State of Connecticut or the plaintiff, he was sued by the latter after the war in
Pennsylvania whereto he (the defendant) had removed. Jared Ingersoll—it will be
recalled that he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention—argued for the
defendant that, because of the confiscation, the plaintiff had no right to sue.
William Rawle, who was on the other side, took the view that the Connecticut
confiscation law and decree were not entitled to effect in Pennsylvania.
Both lawyers made full use of the few decisions and even fewer writings then
available dealing with the extra-territorial effect of legislation and conflicts problems
in general. Arguing the principle of territoriality, Rawle quoted Vattel for the
proposition that one nation cannot intermeddle with the government of another, Id
at 396, Vattel, Law of Nations (1760). A collisio legum would arise, and the
universal rule, as stated by Huber’s third axiom, was that the laws and interests of
the state having jurisdiction of the cause shall be preferred. 1 Dall., 393 at 397,
Huber’s de conflictu legum, In HUBER, PRAELECTIONES JURIS CIVILIS pt. 2, bk. 1,
tit. 3 (1689). 3 Dall. 370 n. (trans.) (1797). In reply, Ingersoll observed:
“that he did not controvert the general doctrine advanced by the opposite counsel
[sic], that the law of nations is the law of nature applied to nations, and that one
sovereign power cannot be bound by another, but he distinguished between the
necessary, and the voluntary law of nations, which arises ex comitate. Vatt. pref.
12 Ibid. p. 6. and insisted that the law of nations actually enforced, are everywhere
obligatory, unless they interfere with the independency of another Legislature. 2
Hub. 26. for, common conveniency renders it necessary to give a certain degree of
force to the statutes of foreign nations. 2 Ld. Kaim. Prin. Eq. 350, 360. 1 Dall.
(Phila. Co.) 393 at 396 (1788). [Bold emphasis added]
He further remarked: “ ... the operation and effect of a sentence, or judgment, of a
foreign Court cannot surely be more binding than the act of a foreign legislature;
and these, ex comitate et jure gentium, are in many cases final. 1 Black. Rep. 258,
262. Vatt. lib. 2. c. 7. sec. 84. p. 147. 1 Dall. (Phila Co.) 393 at 396 (1788).
And he concluded:
“It is true, that the American States have hithereto been held by a very slight
confederacy; but what remedy is to be pursued? Shall we, if the knot is loose,
make it still looser? ...[W]hen a more perfect reason of experience would justify
such a construction; and the United States, though individually sovereign and
independent, must admit, not only the voluntary law of nations but a peculiar law
resulting from their relative situations.” Id. at 389. [Bold emphasis added]
The law of nations dealt in reality with bilateral contracts where there was payment
of debt and a meeting of the minds, therefore everybody knew the terms of the
contact. This was the rules of the ancient law merchant under the term “that a
merchants word is as good as gold.” All such contracts where conducted without
the intervention of third parties such as the governments of the world.
To the contrary, the unincorporated association joins the United Nations in the
spirit world of make believe of debt/credit where nobody is “paid” in law, there is
just goods and services of compelled performances based upon unilateral
contracts. In addition to other taxes, said contracts will be taxed on a fairy land
concoction of carbon footprints that the Congress will manage and enforce, not
through Article III courts, but though it’s legislative courts under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.
2. Carbon footprints is a United Nations scam to rob you of your wealth and give
most of it to the pirates who run the United Nations under the guise of helping the
poor and down trodden. All we need is look at our own welfare system that has
received trillions of dollars and we have more homeless and down trodden than we
ever had.
The United Nations OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM for the Iraq people was another
example of greed and corruption by the United Nations. Most if not all of the
money for that program was siphoned of by Sadam Hussein and United Nations
bureaucrats and never got to the people it was intended to help.
Regarding the scam of carbon footprints, Bruce Cathie was a commercial airline
pilot for New Zealand Airways. He became a pilot in 1952 and witnessed many
encounters with UFO’s, some of the sightings with witnesses. He documented in
detail where, when, and what they were doing when he started to realize that he
was seeing these UFO’s in the same longitude and latitude of the earth. After he
retired he devoted his life exploring the earth’s magnetic lines of force and has
discovered many astonishing facts that have been proven with mathematics.
Anything in the world of reality can be proven with mathematics. He discovered that
the earth’s magnetic lines of force are contrary to the conventional thinking. He
goes on to prove his findings by using mathematics. He retired then devoted his
life exploring the universe. In his book THE HARMONIC CONQUEST OF SPACE,
which by the way has nothing to with global warming, natural or man made, stated:
“Everything, no matter what its form on this planet exists by reason of magnetic
lines of force. Cathie proves his statement with mathematics. Albert Einstein
proved his theory about atomic energy with mathematics. In order for man to
cause global warming he first has to change the earth’s magnetic lines of force and
to do so he has to have a mathematical formula otherwise, its an impossibility.
Global warming alarmist are not involved in the earth’s realities that can be proven
with mathematics but instead live in a world of their illusions of the way they think
things are or the way they think things should be.
Neil Boortz on his radio talk show off the same name that originates out of Atlanta,
Georgia, made the statement on June 4, 2008 that the environmental movement in
the U.S. is controlled by former red caps that came to U.S. after the collapse of the
old Soviet Union. The cold war failed to conquer U.S., now the former Soviet
agents are using the environmental movement to choke off the economic engine of
U.S. So far so good.
<< Prev - Next >>
Last Updated on Thursday, 07 May 2009 05:44
