Monday, July 8, 2024
4928: International Public Notice: The Bear in the China Shop from Lincoln County Watch
By Anna Von Reitz
The
following brief case commentary from the United States Supreme Court
(the Federal Republic Court in 1805) comes from a Law Memorandum written
by the immortal John Trowbridge in which he is at pains to explain the
difference between confederate states (States of America) operating the
Federal Republic under The Constitution for the united States of America and
the District States created by General Washington as administrative
units of the Territorial District of Columbia Government and all of
these "states" versus the Territories and Possessions of the United
States known as the "Insular States":
"The Supreme Court explains the political distinction between, on the one hand, the members of
the Union, and on the other, the District of Columbia and the territories:
the Union, and on the other, the District of Columbia and the territories:
"On
the part of the plaintiffs, it has been urged that Columbia is a
distinct political society, and is therefore “a state” according to the
definitions of writers on general law.
This is true. But as the act of Congress obviously uses the word “state” in reference to the term as used in the Constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a state in the sense of that instrument.
The result of that examination is a conviction that
the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the Constitution.
the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the Constitution.
. . . These clauses show that the word “state” is used in the Constitution as designating a member of the union [of the original Confederation doing business as the States of America], and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations."
[Underline and boldface emphasis added.] Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445, 452, 2 Cranch 445, 2 L.Ed. 332 (1805).
"It has been attempted to distinguish a Territory from the district [sic] of Columbia; but the court is of opinion that this distinction cannot be maintained.
They may differ in many respects, but neither of them is a state, in the sense in which that term is used in the constitution."
[Emphasis added.] New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 91, 4 L. Ed. 44 (1816).
These
are definitive findings of the actual Federal Republic Supreme Court
having the proper jurisdiction to decide these issues and what we herein
discover is that:
The
various kinds of "territories" either created administratively by the
district of Columbia or arising as natural properties (Insular States)
are not the "states" referenced in the Constitution.
The "states" in the Constitution being referenced in 1805 are the Confederate states,
that is "states of state" that were members of the American
Confederation formed in 1781 and known as "the American Confederacy"
long before Jefferson Davis was born.
This
all makes sense, as the American States of States were the members of
the States of America -- that is, the Confederation -- awarded the
Federal Constitution known as "The Constitution for the united States of America" in 1787.
Secondly, neither the district of Columbia nor the Territories attached to it are "states" of this kind.
As
we put it in our second International Public Notice addressed to Derek
Johnson, George Washington created District States, not state districts;
the government of the district called "Columbia" is distinct and its
"states" are distinct both from the Confederate states and the United
States Territories, even though all three might meet the definition of
"state" contemplated more generally under international law.
These two
Supreme Court cases tell us that within the purview of the Constitution
forming the Federal Republic the only "states" contemplated are the
members of the original American Confederacy.
This
distinction explains how we have (1) an American Federal
Subcontractor, dba, States of America, and its states which are members
of the American Confederacy, and (2) a district of Columbia
Subcontractor and its territories (District States) which are not
"states" within the meaning of the Federal Constitution, and (3)
separate United States Territories and Possessions which are not
"states" in this context, either.
Now
you can better contemplate the complexity of the original Federal
Government structure and discern how the use of the word "state" was
contextually used to mean some states and not others.
For
Constitutional purposes, the word "state" refers to the Confederate
states belonging to the "States of America", the doing-business-as name
of the original Confederation formed in 1781 which was awarded The
Constitution for the united States of America in 1787. This is the
Federal Government known as the Federal Republic.
In
the original Federal Constitution (1787), the word "state" does not
refer to the District States set up by George Washington to administer
the district of Columbia and its territories (1789 Constitution), nor
does it refer to the United States Territories and Possessions as
"states" (1790 Constitution).
To summarize:
(1) We have the Union States that occupy the national soil jurisdiction of each nation-state.
(2)
We have the Federation States that occupy the international land and
sea jurisdiction belonging to each nation-state, and the members of the
Federation, called States of the Union.
(3)
We had the Confederate States (States-of-States) that were members of
the original 1781 Confederation that occupied the global air
jurisdiction belonging to each nation-state, and which were known
jointly as "the American Confederacy".
(4)
We had the above-mentioned Confederation doing business as the States
of America and operating the Federal Republic under the 1787
Constitution for the united States of America until 1861 when the
American Confederacy lost the necessary quorum to conduct business; at
which point, the individual "Federal Republics" operated as another form
of "states" also failed.
(5)
We still have the District States arising under the Northwest Ordinance
and territories of the district of Columbia, sometimes called "Federal
enclaves", or Federal Management Units, Judicial Districts, Military
Districts, etc.
(6) We still have the United States Territories and Possessions, sometimes called "the Insular States".
All
of six of these governmental entities, three American and three
Federal, have given rise to "states" and it behooves us to know this and
to know that the general meaning of "states" accepted by the Law of
Nations is not used in Federal Codes and documents; since early on, each
document or Act of Congress defines the word "state" as a legal term
for the purposes of that document, treaty, or code.
You can now see why this is necessary.
Our Union States and our States of the Union have never stood under any Constitution.
The
American Federation of States that the "Federal Government" is named
after, delegated the "enumerated powers" to the Federal Subcontractors.
The Federation could never stand under any Constitution as a result of this role, and neither could its member States.
The
only form of American "State" to subject themselves and their
Confederation to service under a Constitution were the original
Confederate States of America (1781 to 1861) and these were all "States
of States" -- separate organizations in the business of providing
governmental services under contract.
None
of these above referenced "states" known as the Union States or as the
States of the Union nor as the original Confederate States were of any
Territorial origin. They were (in the case of the Confederacy) or are
(in the case of the Union States and Federation States) of uniquely
American origin.
The
District (that is, Territorial) States are a different story and arise
on paper as a result of duties owed by the British Territorial
Subcontractors under the Northwest Ordinance.
Likewise,
the so-called Insular States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, et
alia, are known as territorial states and possessions of the United
States.
All
this tangled history, all these various kinds of "states" -- both those
currently existing and those that are "missing" and awaiting
reconstruction -- have to be separately known and acknowledged and
defined, their powers and relationships accounted for, or it is
literally impossible to know what you mean by "United States" or "States
of America" or "United States of America".
The
later incorporation of the British Territorial version of "the United
States of America" to create "the United States of America --
Incorporated" added another layer of complexity, as we must additionally
distinguish between incorporated and unincorporated "states".
Still
later, the Municipal Government of the United States also incorporated
Municipal Corporations named after our States, distinguished as STATES,
which are foreign Municipal Corporations.
These
additional incorporated "states" and "states of states" just muddy the
water more and cause more confusion and these are business entities
only, arising on paper; they are owned and operated by the Federal
Subcontractors, not the American people.
Bottom line: we have been feloniously impersonated and so have our States of the Union.
We
have been "assumed" to be responsible for the debts and outrages of
these foreign corporations and their "states", without our knowledge or
consent.
We
have been "presumed to acquiesce" to their activities apportioning
themselves new rights, new roles, and new empowerments, including but
not limited to more than fifteen unilateral and unratified (by our
States) Amendments to their service contracts, and endless drafts
against our credit, and the unregulated enforcement of vast quantities
of new Federal Code, representing impositions that were never granted to
them via any contract.
Let
it be known that these Subcontractors never consulted nor fully
informed their employers of their actions and presumptions and never
bothered to actually implement the remedies published as a means to
legalize their theft of American property.
This
leads to the inevitable conclusion that these foreign Employees working
as Federal Subcontractors, used the plethora of confusions related to
the kind and nature of "states", and the absence of the American
Confederacy after the Civil War, to promote a mammoth and secretive
fraud scheme against their actual Employers.
The
absence of the American Confederacy in no way excuses their obligations
owed to the American People and to the States of the Union and the
Union States.
The
absence of the American Confederacy doesn't grant them any additional
contracts or special powers. It doesn't elevate or change the nature of
their "states". It doesn't ratify all the unratified "Amendments" they
have unilaterally made to their own service contracts. It doesn't
allow them to declare war. It doesn't allow them to impersonate
Americans as "Federal Citizens" via undisclosed and unconscionable
registrations and enrollments and enlistments. It doesn't allow them to
impersonate our Federation of States as a foreign incorporated entity.
The American Confederacy was never their Employer, and its duties were never vouchsafed to them.
Their
gross failure to fully inform the Federation of States that delegated
their "powers" to them, and their subsequent criminal activities
resulting in gross harm to their employers speak for themselves.
These "Federal Corporations" have been operating as rogue "states" -- and they are not "states" of ours.
We
have only by dint of our own hard work and investigation determined
what these foreign entities have done "in our names" and falsely alleged
against our country and our people. No disclosure was provided to us
or to our States of the Union by these criminal miscreants, who are the
responsibility of the Pope and His Imperial Majesty, "King" Charles, and
the Lord Mayor of London.
There
is no contract or agreement allowing our Federal Subcontractors to
promote a Mercenary Conflict on our shores and the continuation of this
illegal and immoral nonsense for 164 years in view of the fact that both
these organizations are ultimately owned and operated by the Pope --
directly in the case of the Municipal Corporations, and indirectly
through his Commonwealth Overseer in the case of the Territorial
Corporations --- is purely criminal.
The
Popes and the British Monarchs and the Governors and Mayors of
Westminster have owed us good faith service throughout the duration of
this self-interested crime spree, and they have fraudulently pretended
to be our protectors, allies, and custodians throughout this criminal
rampage of predation and impersonation, racketeering, human trafficking,
and political usurpation.
The shame and the bill is entirely on them.
Issued by:
Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary
The United States of America
In care of: Box 520994
Big Lake, Alaska 99652
July 8th 2024
----------------------------
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.
No comments:
Post a Comment