America the Legal, but not Lawful Government

My Recent Posts

Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than the corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54)


At the end of the actual article are numerous definitions and reference materials. They were placed at the end so as not to detract from the article itself, but should probably be reviewed if the reader wishes to have a clearer understanding of the article itself. It is necessary to understand the legal meaning of certain terms … including the separation of the terms “Legal” and “Lawful” as there is a distinct separation of the terms. Furthermore, additional points will be clarified by the inclusion of additional definitions from Blacks Law and other legal resources. Some of the other materials will be referenced, though it is strictly up to the reader to conduct their own research and see where the facts and reality lead them.


When these independent but united States of America were formed and openly declared their separation or independence from the British Crown, there was a Confederation of independent but united States. A Confederation or more accurately, a National (or Nationalist) Confederation wherein certain few and well defined powers were granted to the National Government in order to strengthen the ability of the independent but united States to conduct matters of international diplomacy and trade and to ensure that peace was maintained by and between the independent States, with only marginal powers being granted to conduct international warfare. After the War for American Independence, this was ultimately changed to a Representative Constitutional Republic that was still by all considerations, a Nationalist union of independent and largely sovereign States within Continental America. Included in this documentation was a “Bill of Rights” … the rights of the independent States to declare their sovereign authority and the recognition of God-given rights (or rights granted by “the Creator”) and the inability of the national (now federal) system to infringe upon those individual Rights. Among the more notable of these in regards to the independent but united States of America was the Tenth Amendment which clearly states that all rights that are not specifically granted to the national government are reserved to the States and to the People.


The Bill of Rights should most likely be viewed as a Contractual Agreement by and between the governments of the independent but united States and the National Government … though this is certainly open to interpretation and will result in various opinions. What cannot be contested is that we, by the mere nature of our existence, have certain lawful and inalienable rights, among those being the rights to life and liberty … defending our persons and personal property and being a free (and independent) people. The Constitution itself governed how the independent but united States would be represented within the national system, making the entire process fairly clear and concise and in no need of excessive “interpretation” of “the law”. The Constitution strictly mandates that a Quorum is necessary for Congress in order that they may successfully legislate the actions of the National (now Federal) government.


Move forward roughly four score years … about eighty-five years or so, and the American War Between the States began. In order to avoid any distractions from the underlying point of this article, it should be presumed that the individual beliefs of each reader regarding the underlying cause(s) for the commencement of hostilities is accurate and for that matter, feel free to call it a Civil War rather than noting it more correctly as a secondary revolution involving completely separate nations. These points are in fact, secondary and honestly, entirely inconsequential to what would take place as part of the commencement of hostilities and as a result thereof. In short, whatever is believed was the cause, the intention of this article is to examine the effect. The reader should forget about the blatantly unconstitutional dismissal of the principle and ultimate suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the unlawful detention of members of the press and other detractors of his actions and policies and other unconstitutional actions before the commencement of hostilities and consider only the results.


On the twenty-seventh day of March in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-one, the Congressional representatives of seven Southern states walked out of the halls of Congress during an active Congressional session, leaving the Congress unable to establish a quorum even for the sake of enacting a recess of the Congress and a date and time for the re-convention of the Congressional body. Thus it was that the Congress was dismissed “sine die” or “without day”, and as can be verified by the Congressional records, that was the last time that Congress was lawfully in session. (in accordance with the Constitution and as opposed to “Legally” meaning in accordance with the law as it was since established, despite the lawful or unlawful nature of the establishment of that law) In Accordance with the rules as established and adapted, and concisely put together in “Robert’s Rules of Order as written in 1815, this effectively concluded the presence of a lawful congress and dissolved the Congress … it no longer, by established precedent (albeit parliamentary precedent) existed as a lawful body of representatives as it was incapable of forming a quorum even for the sake of reconvening.


Had there been any sense or desire for lawful action as opposed to merely legal action; after the Secession of the Southern States, the Congressional Representatives of the Union could (and should?) have resumed under the notion that since these independent States were now a separate and unique nation … ultimately thirteen States, … Congress could have resumed in a legal fashion as per the States remaining in the Union … though even during the period of “reconstruction”, the new and illegitimate Congress continued to function in a legal, though not lawful manner … and has continued as such until this very day.


Enter the Omniscient President

Lincoln, in all of his “infinite wisdom” determined, and perhaps rightfully so in this case, that the only viable means to get everything back in order, was through the introduction of what we now routinely accept as the “Executive Order”. Now it should be noted that this was not entirely uncalled for, or even entirely out of place considering the extenuating circumstances. Whether or not it should have become routine for each and every president ever since is another matter entirely, and again, the SCOTUS ruling that it was legal, does not by any means make it a lawful action. In fact, such actions were undertaken under “Color” … the Color of Law, the Color of Authority and/or the Color of Office, and were not long-term or lawful actions, though they may have been legal, again, given the extenuating circumstances at the time. However, this does not allow for handing the same powers down throughout the rest of history … unless of course it is ALL conducted under the presumption of a continued National Emergency and under the powers authorized by something like the War Powers Act or other Act instituted under the “immediate crisis” of any convenient “national emergency”.


The second Executive Order of Abraham Lincoln was issued in April of 1861 and ordered Congress back in session, though without a lawful quorum. Each President since Lincoln has functioned by Executive Orders issued from a military, martial law jurisdiction with the only “law” being the “law of necessity” … the War Powers. (See 12 USC 95) Since that time, no Congressional Session has ever met under lawful due process. Congress is now a legal fiction, that while legal, is not lawful in nature. Now it should be noted that this was not entirely uncalled for, or even entirely out of place considering the extenuating circumstances. Whether or not it should have become routine for each and every president ever since is another matter entirely, and again, the SCOTUS ruling that it was legal, does not by any means make it a lawful action. In fact, such actions were undertaken under “Color” … the Color of Law, the Color of Authority and/or the Color of Office, and were not long-term or lawful actions, though they may have been legal, again, given the extenuating circumstances at the time.


Furthermore, no act of Congress, no legislation or any other government law is lawful in nature, and its legal standing is enforced (arbitrarily and subjectively) by laws that are legal, based solely on a legal fiction ruling over another legal fiction under the color of law. The only reason that any of this remains legal, is that the congress can now make whatever laws it wishes and they can be arbitrarily enforced insofar as the select Judges of SCOTUS agree that such laws are “legal” even if not lawful in reality. The only “legal” standing for government to demand that this color of law be followed, is through the threat of force and/or the unlawful detention of citizens, being held to account for a legal fiction that does not lawfully exist. (Government does after all, have what it takes to take what you have!)


From a lawful standing, every federal act and every federal stature and every federal law is de facto … in fact, it may be understood from Blacks Law (Fourth Edition) that the national government of these independent but united States of America is in fact a De Facto Government. Common Law from both American Common Law and English Common Law previously utilized within the United States effectively ended in 1861, though the legal (though still not lawful) process to implement this would be ongoing for another hundred years or so, with more revisions tossed in even today, as they become of importance. Common Law was formally “shelved” in 1938. From this point in 1861 on through to today, the US has been under the Color of Law and the Color of Authority. According to one comment made during the 1973 session of the Supreme Court of the United States; “In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century, was the pre-existing English common law ...” and from Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113. we see “It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law.” There is in fact no Court of Common Law Jurisdiction and thus, the due process of the flesh and blood women and men cannot be given choice of jurisdiction in accordance with Due Process as guaranteed.


These independent but united States of America … or at least the (newly formed, de facto) national government thereof, was incorporated in the Organic Act of 1871 as a Corporation of the Federal District … what we know as Washington DC or Washington, (Federal) District of Colombia. This (now) National Government was still bound to the Constitution of these independent but united States of America as it had in fact been formed by a Contract … a Lawful and Legal Contract, by and between the independent but united States and their representative governments. The now Corporate National Government was restructured in 1878 and at the same time, actually trademarked the names “United States”, “U.S.” and a host of other names. These names, in all capital letters are used to denote the Legal Fiction of these entities. The individual States were not fully incorporated until sometime between 1962 and 1968, in part because of the Bankruptcy and debt of the USA and in part because of tax laws. It was at this time that States incorporated names such as STATE OF TEXAS or STATE OF FLORIDA and these were effectively known as a “State within a State” and were in fact, (additional) federal Districts, incorporated under the Corporate USA.


The formerly independent but united States became Federal Districts under the Buck Act. Further Federal Districts are through the Federal Reserve Bank (Which is a trust, not a bank, and is not part of the Federal Government, but the holder of the debt owed by the Corporate USA), ZIP Codes, States within the States as identified through the utilization of ZIP Codes, two letter State Abbreviations in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS … the name of an INDIVIDUAL IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS is the acronym of the flesh and blood human being. Any signature on any documentation with ALL CAP NAMES is a waiver of individual rights and an acceptance of the accord with the federal system as a federal citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment … you have ceded your rights and replaced them with government granted privilege. You are “legally” required to pay taxes, because you, by any single instance as noted herein, have waived your rights and accepted citizenship in the federal system under the federal government. Having utilized any of these or a hundred other “trips” or “traps” have ceded yourself by entering into an agreement and/or a contract with the government for a permission … a privilege. When an Agency of the STATE instigates an action against you, basic Constitutional Arguments are not successful in most courts as they are conducted under the Color of Law and generally, at least within Federal Courts, under the auspices of the GENERAL LAW OF CONTRACTS (The UCC or Uniform Commercial Code).


While the newly formed Corporate United States of America was bound by the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution, despite the effect of now running the National Government as a Federal Government, but this would soon change. The National (now Federal) government was created by the Constitution and greatly restricted in accordance with Constitutional Due Process. Any law that does not have its origins based on the Constitution and in accordance with Constitutional Law, is not a valid law. While such laws may be “legal” in nature under de facto Law, they are not “lawful” and thus, are enforceable only through the threat of force and/or the illegal detainment of the flesh and blood man or woman in place of the Legal Fiction against whom such laws are enforced. If indeed the federal government is “restricted” in any way, it needs only lay claims to Article 1, section 10 regarding any obligations of contract and subsequently, under the Uniform Commercial Code effectively unrestricted in any such action as it may deem to be appropriate. (See Title 26 of the UCC. Consider Federal Areas, Federal Jurisdiction and all of the Privileges that you have already contracted out to, from, with and/or on behalf of the federal government through contracting with them for your privileges under the fourteenth amendment.)


Because the Federal Government (The United States of America) is a legal fiction and corporate entity, it is run under Contract law … the UCC, under the color of law. Shortly after this incorporation, the Bureau of Vital Statistics was formed, and required “Civil Certificates” for birth, marriage, death and other records, all of which fall under the United States Department of Commerce. During the Bankruptcy Proceedings under the Bankruptcies of the UNITED STATES allowed for the bankers to “call in their debts” which the United States was unable to pay. These banks, and the UNITED STATES through the various Bankruptcy Acts and other related Acts, allows for the corporate government to function completely outside and free of any restraints of the Constitution of the independent but united States of America.


Civil Records” under the Color of Law are utilized to bring the government in as a third party to these matters wherein there are Civil Certificate requirements. A Civil Birth Certificate is issued by the STATE and registered with US Census Bureau which is a Sub-Agency of the US Department of Commerce. Same with the Civil Wedding Certificate. In the case of the Birth Certificate, the given Christian name is replaced with the All Caps Name and registered with the Department of Commerce becoming a surety. In short, you become a surety … a guarantor to pay the debts of the federal system. Through the introduction of the Maiden Name of the Mother, the infant is legally registered as a Ward of the State, granting the State the right to make claims for and on behalf of the child … to contract. In Linneman v. Linneman, we see that “Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State.” (Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2D 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953) citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926) and further that, the State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life. So the government can even decide what is important to you and your family under the Color of Law.


It is the opinion of the author that virtually every “contracted privilege” by and between Legal Fictions is an Unconscionable Contract and thus, null and void … but if you are crazy enough to fight it, you are on your own. By rights, we are pretty much all buggered. This even includes foreigners … including those who do not believe that they are affected by American Law … as the Uniform Commercial Code is again, the GENERAL LAW OF CONTRACTS and most nations, outside of a few select “Axis of Evil” are part and parcel of the International UCC through their Securities and Exchange Commissions, Stock Exchanges, Centralized Banking System and other similar government institutions and/or non-governmental agencies.


I could continue this article into books if I had the time and the resources available to do so, but there are a few people on Writer Beat who have specifically requested some of this information. In short, if you are part of the system, there is very little chance of ever getting out of it effectively … and even if you do, you can rest assured the price will be a high one as I can personally testify!





CERTIFICATE: noun. Middle English certificat, from Middle Frenchm from Medieval Latin ceruficatum. From Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare, to certify, 15th century. A document evidencing ownership or debt.

(Merriam Webster Dictionary (1998))


COLOR. An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facie or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance; a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. Railroad Co. v. Allfree, 64 Iowa 500, 20 N.W. 779; Broughton v. Haywood, 61 N.C. 383; Wilt v. Bueter, 186 Ind. 98, 111 N.E. 926, 929.


A term of the ancient rhetoricians, and early adopted into the language of pleading. It was an apparent or prima facie right; and the meaning of the rule that pleadings in confession and avoidance should give color was that they should confess the matter adversely alleged, to such an extent, at least, as to admit some apparent right in the opposite party, which required to be encountered and avoided by the allegation of new matter. Color was either express, i. e., inserted in the pleading, or implied, which was naturally inherent in the structure of the pleading. Steph.P1. 233; Merten v. Bank, 5 Okl. 585, 49 P. 913. Wheeler v. Nickels, 168 Or. 604, 126 P.2d 32, 36.


COLOR OF AUTHORITY. That semblance or presumption of authority sustaining the acts of a public officer which is derived from his apparent title to the office or from a writ or other process in his hands apparently valid and regular. State v. Oates, 86 Wis. 634, 57 N.W. 296, 39 Am.St.Rep. 912.


COLOR OF LAW. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. State v. Brechler, 185 Wis. 599, 202 N.W. 144, 148.


COLOR OF OFFICE. An act unjustly done by the countenance of an office, being grounded upon corruption, to which the, office is as a shadow and color. Plow. 64. Day v. National Bond & Investment Co., Mo.App., 99 S.W.2d 117, 119.


A claim or assumption of right to do an act by virtue of an office, made by a person who is legally destitute of any such right. Feller v. Gates, 40 Or. 543, 67 P. 416, 56 L.R.A. 630, 91 Am.St.Rep. 492; Citizens' Bank of Colquitt v. American Surety Co. of New York, 174 Ga. 852, 164 S.E. 817; Pontiac Trust Co. v. Newell, 266 Mich. 490, 254 N.W. 178, 181.


DE FACTO. In fact; actually; indeed; in reality. Ridout v. State, 161 Tenn. 248, 30 S.W.2d 255, 257, 71 A.L.R. 830. Thus, an office, position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a deputy county clerk. Heron v. Gaylor, 49 N.M. 62, 157 P.2d 239, 241; deputy clerk of court. State v. Brandon, 186 S.C. 448, 197 S.E. 113, 115; corporate office. In re Hillmark Associates, D.C.N. Y., 47 F.Supp. 605, 606; corporation, Municipal Bond & Mortgage Corporation v. Bishop's Harbor Drainage Dist., 133 Fla. 430, 182 So. 794, 797; Ebeling v. Independent Rural Telephone Co., 187 Minn. 604, 246 N.W. 373; court, Marckel Co. v. Zitzow, 218 Minn. 305, 15 N.W.2d 777, 778; depositary, School Dist. No. 1, Itasco County, v. Afton, 173 Minn. 428, 217 N.W. 496, 499; deputy sheriff, alone v. Howell, 140 Fla. 693, 192 So. 224, 227; fire district commissioner, Petition of Board of Fire Com'rs of Columbia-Litchfield Fire Dist,. Sup., 29 N.Y.S.2d 605, 619; grand jury, McDonald v. Colden, 181 Misc. 407, 41 N.Y.S.2d 323, 3 27; guardian, State ex rel. Symons v. East Chicago State Bank, 106 Ind.App. 4, 17 N.E.2d 491, 494; judge, Annoni v. Bias Nadal's Heirs, C.C.A.Puerto Rico, 94 F.2d 513, 515; officer, Eaker v. Common School Dist. No. 73 of Butler County, Mo.App., 62 S.W.2d 778, 783; police officer, People ex ref. Mitchell v. Armspach, 314 Ill.App. 573, 41 N.E.2d 781; trustee, In re Wohl's Estate, 36 N.Y.S.2d 926,. 930.


DE FACTO GOVERNMENT. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145.


DEMOCRACY. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. According to the theory of a pure democracy, every citizen should participate directly in the business of governing, and the legislative assembly should comprise the whole people. But the ultimate lodgment of the sovereignty being the distinguishing feature, the introduction of the representative system does not remove a government from this type. However, a government of the latter kind is sometimes specifically described as a "representative democracy." {In short, mob rule, such as can be seen at Schoolboard Meetings, and other “Townhalls” at the local level wherein a voice is ostensibly granted to the people}


Town form of government constitutes pure democracy as distinguished from representative government. Commonwealth v. Town of Hudson, 315 Mass. 335, 52 N.E.2d 566, 572.


Democracy is loosely used of governments in which the sovereign powers are exercised by all the people or, a large number of them, or specifically, in modern use, of a representative government where there is equality of rights without hereditary or arbitrary differences in rank or privilege; and is distinguished from aristocracy. * * * In modern representative democracies, as the United States and France, though the governing body, that is, the electorate, is a minority of the total population, the principle on which the government is based is popular sovereignty, which distinguishes them from aristocracies. Webster's New Int.Dict. {It should be noted that the US was never referred to as a democracy before the War Between the States and it did not begin appearing in textbooks until sometime around 1910 … though it appeared intermittently in some textbooks as early as 1904}


DEMOCRATIC. Of or pertaining to democracy, or to a political party called "democratic," particularly, in the United States, the Democratic party, which succeeded the Anti-federalist, or Republican, party.


DISTRICT. One of the portions into which an entire state or country, county, municipality or other political subdivision or geographical territory is divided, for judicial, political, or administrative purposes. Briggs v. Stevens, 119 Or. 138, 248 P. 169; State ex rel. Schur v. Payne, 57 Nev. 86, 63 P.2d 921, 925.


The United States are divided into judicial districts, in each of which is established a district court. They are also divided into election districts, collection districts, etc.

{It is imperative to establish Federal Districts in order that all of the people are under the authority of the Federal System as Federal Citizens under the fourteenth amendment rather than being denizens of a particular State within the National System of governance. As federal citizens under federal jurisdiction as noted in the fourteenth amendment, people “enjoy privileges of” and do not have God-given or Constitutionally protected rights, but “privileges” granted by the government. Federal Jurisdiction is suitable only for actions of one Legal Fiction against another Legal Fiction whereas the jurisdiction for a flesh and blood human being would be under a common-law-venue court and not under jurisdiction.}


The circuit or territory within which a person may be compelled to appear. Cowell. Circuit of authority; province. Enc. Lond.


FEDERAL. American Law. Belonging to the general government or union of the states. Founded on or organized under the constitution or laws of the United States.


The United States has been generally styled, in American political and judicial writings, a "federal government." The term has not been imposed by any specific constitutional authority, but only expresses the general sense and opinion upon the nature of the form of government. In recent years, there is observable a disposition to employ the term "national" in speaking of the government of the Union. Neither word settles anything as to the nature or powers of the government. "Federal" is somewhat more appropriate if the government is considered a union of the states; "national" is preferable if the view is adopted that the state governments and the Union are two distinct systems, each established by the people directly, one for local and the other for national purposes. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588; Abbott; Mills, Representative Government 301; Freeman, Fed. Gov't.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The system of government administered in a state formed by the union or confederation of several independent or quasi, independent states; also the composite state so formed.


In strict usage, there is a distinction between a confederation and a federal government. The former term denotes a league or permanent alliance between several states, each of which is fully sovereign and independent, and each of which retains its full dignity, organization, and sovereignty, though yielding to the central authority a controlling power for a few limited purposes, such as external and diplomatic relations. In this case, the component states are the units, with respect to the confederation, and the central government acts upon them, not upon the individual citizens. In a federal government, on the other hand, the allied states form a union,—not, indeed, to such an extent as to destroy their separate organization or deprive them of quasi sovereignty with respect to the administration of their purely local concerns, but so that the central power is erected into a true state or nation, possessing sovereignty both external and internal,—while the administration of national affairs is directed, and its effects felt, not by the separate states deliberating as units, but by the people of all, in their collective capacity, as citizens of the nation. The distinction is expressed, by the German writers, by the use of the two words "Staatenbund" and "Bundesstaat;" the former denoting a league or confederation of states, and the latter a federal government, or state formed by means of a league or confederation.


JURIS IGNORANTIA EST CUM JUS NOSTRUM IGNORAMUS. It is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights. Haven v. Foster, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 130, 19 Am.Dec. 353.


LAWFUL. Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law. hio Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Fender, 108 Ohio St. 149, 141 N.E. 269, 275; McDonnell v. Murnan Shipbuilding Corporation, 210 Ala. 611, 98 So. 887, 889; Hafner Mfg. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 262 Mo. 621, 172 S.W. 28, 33. {To be “Lawful”, a law must be subject to the effective Law of the Land … the Constitution, the law of the People … the Common Law … and they must be actual and not merely implied so as to be “ethical in nature”. Conversely, a matter between intangible or “Legal Fictions” can only be construed to be under the color of law, and while it may include actions such as are legal, they are not necessarily, by nature, Lawful. Thus, for something to be legal, it need merely be conducted under the Color of Law despite the actual Lawful nature of such Law.}


The principal distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is "legal" implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner.


In this sense "illegal" approaches the meaning of "invalid." For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful.


Further, the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word "legal" is used as the synonym of "constructive," which "lawful" is not. Thus "legal fraud" is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. "Lawful fraud" would be a contradiction of terms. Again, "legal" is used as the antithesis of "equitable." Thus, we speak of "legal assets," "legal estate," etc., but not of "lawful assets," or "lawful estate." But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a "lawful" writ, warrant, or process is the same as a "legal" writ, warrant, or process.


LAWFUL MAN. A freeman, unattainted, and capable of bearing oath; a legaltis homo. {A Sovereign is NOT a Person” United Mine Workers vs. United States, 330 U.S. 258. The plural of “Person” is “Persons” and not “People”, and Persons are Legal Fictions, not Flesh and Blood men and women.}




1. Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law. Freeman v. Fowler Packing Co., 135 Kan. 378, 11 P.2d 276, 277; General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Schwartz, 118 N.J.L. 25, 190 A. 625, 627.


2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by the law; cognizable in the courts; competent or adequate o fulfill the requirements of the law.


3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law, in contradistinction to rules of equity.


4. Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof; e. g., legal malice. See Lawful.


5. Created by law. De Vita v. Pianisani, 127 Misc. 611, 217 N.Y.S. 438, 440. 6. Lawful; of or pertaining to law. Kinsley v. Herald & Globe Ass'n, 113 Vt. 272, 34 A.2d 99, 101, 148 A.L.R. 1164.


LEGAL ENTITY. Legal existence. Department of Banking v. Hedges, 136 Neb. 382, 286 N.W. 277, 281,


LEGAL FICTION. “n. A presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience, consistency or to achieve justice.’


There is an old adage: Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.


A legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent, is true and real.


Legal Fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice.


(Source: Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, 1999, West Group Publishing)


LEGAL FICTION. Something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption.


Example: … the legal fiction that a day has no fraction … Fields vs. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 818 P.2d658 (1991)

(Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, published 1996)


Mercantile Law. The goods and wares of a merchant or tradesman, kept for sale and traffic. Schnitzer v. Excelsior Powder Mfg. Co., Mo.App., 160 S.W. 282, 285. In a larger sense. The capital of a merchant or other person, including his merchandise, money, and credits, or, in other words, the entire property employed in business.


NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. The government of a whole nation, as distinguished from that of a local or territorial division of the nation, and also as distinguished from that of a league or confederation. "A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the 'social compact,' and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government, by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact." Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoup, 6 Ohio St. 393.


OF. A term denoting that from which anything proceeds; indicating origin, source, descent, and the like; as, he is of a race of kings; he is of noble blood. Stone v. Riggs, 43 Okl. 209, 142 P. 298, 299.


Associated with or connected with, usually in some causal relation, efficient, material, formal, or final. Harlan v. Industrial Accident Commission, 194 Cal. 352, 228 P. 654, 657.


The word has been held equivalent to after, 10 L.J.Q.B. 10; at, or belonging to, Davis v. State, 38 Ohio St. 506; in possession of, Bell County v. Hines, Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W. 556, 557; Stokes v. Great Southern Lumber Co., D.C.Miss., 21 F.2d 185, 186; manufactured by, 2 Bing. N.C. 668; by, Hannum v. Kingsley, 107 Mass. 355; residing at, Porter v. Miller, 3 Wend. (N.Y.) 329; 8 A. & E. 232; from, State v. Wong Fong, 75 Mont. 81, 241 P. 1072, 1074; in, Kellogg v. Ford, 70 Or. 213, 139 P. 751, 752.


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


PRIMA_FACIE, Lat. At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary. State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599.


PRIMA FACIE CASE. Such as will suffice until contradicted and overcome by other evidence. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Wallace, 158 Or. 210, 75 P.2d 942, 947.


A case which has proceeded upon sufficient proof to that stage where it will support finding if evidence to contrary is disregarded. In re Hoagland's Estate, 126 Neb. 377, 253 N.W. 416.


A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on the other side. In some cases the only question to be considered is whether there is a prima facie case or no. Thus a grand jury are bound to find a true bill of indictment, if the evidence before them creates a prima facie case against the accused; and for this purpose, therefore, it is not necessary for them to hear the evidence for the defense. Mozley & Whitley. And see State v. Hardelein, 169 Mo. 579, 70 S.W. 130; State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216, 9 N.W. 698.


PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE. Evidence good and sufficient on its face; such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient. State v. Burlingame, 146 Mo. 207, 48 S.W. 72.


Evidence which suffices for the proof of a particular fact until contradicted and overcome by other evidence. Dodson v. Watson, 110 Tex. 355, 220 S.W. 771, 772, 11 A.L.R. 583.


Evidence which, standing alone and unexplained, would maintain the proposition and warrant the conclusion to support which it is introduced. Gilmore v. Modern Brotherhood of America, 186 Mo.App. 445, 171 S.W. 629, 632.


An inference or presumption of law, affirmative or negative of a fact, in the absence of proof, or until proof can be obtained or produced to overcome the inference. People v. Thacher, 1 Thomp. & C., N.Y., 167.


A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on the other side. Mozley & Whitley. State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216, 9 N.W. 698.


A "prima facie case" is one which is apparently established by evidence adduced by plaintiff in support of his case up to the time such evidence stands unexplained and uncontradicted. Morrison v. Flowers, 308 Ill. 189, 139 N.E. 10, 12.


A "prima facie case" is one in which the evidence in favor of a proposition is sufficient to support a finding in its favor, if all of the evidence to the contrary be disregarded. Schallert v. Boggs, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W. 1061, 1062. See, also, Presumptive Evidence.


REPUBLIC. A commonwealth; that form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independently of its form of government. 1 Toullier 28 and n., 202, note; State v. Harris, 2 Bailey (S.C.) 599; Co.Litt. 303.


REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. A government in the republican form; a government of the people; a government by representatives chosen by the people. In re Duncan, 11 S.Ct. 573, 139 U.S. 449, 35 L.Ed. 219; Kadderly v. Portland, 44 Or. 118, 74 P. 710.


STATE, n. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. United States v. Kusche, D.C.Cal., 56 F. Supp. 201, 207, 208.


The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people. Delany v. Moraitis, C.C.A.Md., 136 F. 2d 129, 130.


One of the component commonwealths or-States of the United States of America. The term is sometimes applied also to governmental agencies authorized by state, such as municipal corporations. George v. City of Portland, 114 Or. 418, 235 P. 681, 683, 39 A.L.R. 341.


The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a cause, "The State vs. A. B." {Is the whole of the people harmed by the harmless acts of a singular individual such as the utilization of marijuana, growing a garden in the front yard, trapping rainwater, placing a clothes line in the front yard or other similar and relatively benign actions?}


The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.


The circumstances or condition of a being or thing at a given time. State v. Inich, 55 Mont. 1, 173 P. 230, 234.


Foreign State

A foreign country or nation. The several United States are considered "foreign" to each other except as regards their relations as common members of the Union.


Unconscionable Contract. One which no sensible man not under delusion, duress, or in distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll, 115 Ind.App. 289, 58 N.E.2d 947, 949, 950.




Title Two of the Code of Federal Regulations – GRANTS AND AGREEMENTS (Note, while this section deals with Grants and Agreements and even Jurisdiction, under which much of the law between Legal Fictions is conducted, you will need to utilize a FOIA request to attain this document. (See the government NARA Website for further information) Even with an FOIA request however, most of this section is still “Reserved” and/or “Omitted” and not granted to the General Populace … despite their being bound by this law under contractual agreement with the Federal Government)

Black’s Law (I prefer the ORIGINAL 4th … not the annotated and “updated” 4th but there is a selection available)

- A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856

Organic Act of 1871

Paper Currency Act

The Sherman Act

Buck Act

Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 (In conjunction with 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111)

HJR 192

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1938 and 1966

USC (Please note how much of the law is “Omitted” … not removed, not revised, just “Omitted” … so you cannot see it. Why would this be unless there was something to hide?)


The Portable UCC (American Bar Association or ABA Documentation)

The ABC’s of the UCC. Article 9 (ABA Documentation)

The New Article 9 (ABA Documentation)

Default Provisions of the Revised Article 9 (ABA Documentation)

ABC’s of the UCC. Article 8 (ABA Documentation)

The UCC and You … A Workbook … A very good reference material

Federal Reserve Commercial Code

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976

Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction

The Law of American Admiralty

Plea of Jurisdictional and Prosecutorial Error USC §2 §60 (Omitted)

Elements of Jurisdiction

Blackstones Commentary on the Common Law of England Adapted to the Constitution

14th Amendment

Trademark and Patent Records Office

Bretton Woods Agreement

2013 Digest of United States Practice In International Law

Federal Congressional Record

Emergency Powers Act

United States Bankruptcy Act of 1898

Codex Justinianus (Latin recommended … and primarily as a base understanding of Roman Law)

Corpus Juris Secundum … yeah I wish I still had my set but alas …)

Robert’s Rules of Order




Jeffry Gilbert Added Aug 6, 2018 - 2:38am
Well done Ward. 
Lindsay Wheeler Added Aug 6, 2018 - 3:02am
Abraham Lincoln did destroy Old America! He turned this into a Unitary state and destroyed the old system of a federation of sovereign states. That is why the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy created "The Pledge of Allegiance". No one was supposed to ever have allegiance to their state--but to the Union. 
Yep, our government is illegitimate!
Jeffry Gilbert Added Aug 6, 2018 - 3:36am
Yep, our government is illegitimate!
It has certainly acted that way for the entirety of my six plus decades. 
Stone-Eater Added Aug 6, 2018 - 3:48am
Wow. Thanks a lot for this. Valuable stuff. Whileas most western countries have a representative democracy, Switzerland has a direct democracy with no president. Pretty unique but people have more say than anywhere else. Otherwise we are a federal state too. Your constitution served the French for theirs, and we also mostly adopted it. The difference is that we vote as people not only for representatives but also on national subjects as health, defense, education etc..., which has resulted in us being not part of the EU or NATO.
Stone-Eater Added Aug 6, 2018 - 3:50am
...not being part. Early morning....
FacePalm Added Aug 6, 2018 - 6:37am
Holy Crap!
Voluminous info, confirming much of what i'd already learned.  When i posted about the USG reorganizing itself in 1871 as a corporate entity "doing business as" the government of the united States, i was roundly criticized and mocked for being a "conspiracy nut."
But i've found more than one online source which claims you can STILL exercise your common law rights; two are as follows:
The former is alleged to be run by LEO's for LEO's and civilians, and seems to have concentrated it's energies on the freedom to travel, not drive, ergo no need for a "driver's license," as you're NOT driving(allegedly, driving is defined in statutory language as "operating a motor vehicle in commerce, transporting goods or passengers for hire," thus eliminating quite a few things gov't agencies claim are "required," like a license to drive(you're not driving, but traveling), license plates, because you're traveling in your private property; insurance(get a bond, instead, usually cheaper than insurance anyway and covers the same potentialities), etc.
The latter is more faith-based, and in one of the recorded conference calls w/video, the very citation with which you began this article appears, along with several others which conclusively prove that corporations can only legally interact with other corporations, so if you can avoid all the traps courts lay to trick you into admitting that you and the ALL CAPS name are the same, and act as a Man in court, not "requesting" anything but "requiring" this and that of court officers(as they're sworn public servants), not obeying a judges "orders," but instead, inquiring if his command is a request or a command; acknowledging that courts make many presumptions about your status and contesting or denying these assumptions and presumptions can allegedly compel the court to eventually dismiss the case against you, the man.  But then, they offer another interesting theory called "subrogation.  Allegedly, the court or prosecutor sets up a bond prior to the hearing, and when you show up, if you require the prosecutor to provide written acknowlegement of your right to subrogate, you can then transfer your claim to THEIR bond, and let them take whatever fines they have assessed from that bond, if i understood what they had to say correctly.  This way, you have nothing taken from YOUR pocket.
Unfortunately, i don't have access to the inner info at, because i can't pay the fee.  i have seen several success stories, though.  Several of their vids can be found @ youtube by searching "youarelaw," and i'd be interested in your opinion on any of them, should you wish to investigate and report.
There's a fella i read about maybe 12 years ago, Brad something Barnhill, maybe? - wrote a blog @ yahoo called "mypersonalodyssey."  In it, he described how he'd travel in his personal property w/no license plates or inspection sticker, get stopped by the cops, explain his position, get arrested and jailed, his car/truck/van towed to the impound yard; he'd then go to court, prove his case, get his transpo released at no charge, and go about his way.  Sounded like a huge PITA to me.  Necessity, however, may drive me to do as he did(no pun intended).
Freedom still isn't free, and few see tyranny until they take a stand against it.
Christian Peschken Added Aug 6, 2018 - 8:06am
“Voluminous info” is an excellent way to summarize this article.  Based on the shallowness of the comments, this one included, I’m sure nobody read anything but he title.
Doug Plumb Added Aug 6, 2018 - 9:13am
Great Article, I've heard it all before from the Freeman movement but they make so many mistakes in law and logic that only 10% of what they say can be seen as truth. Its good to hear this from someone with discipline associated with their efforts and words.
  On DeFACTO vs DEJURE: English law requires a valid claim to be valid in terms of both fact and right. Ex, he stole MY bread encompasses both of these ideas. The DEFACTO government is not a government by right, but by force. It does not have a DEJURE component.
  Things are a little different in Canada. You become an agent of the Crown and in doing so give up your rights. The income tax return is not just a promise of truth, but a contract to become an agent of the Crown which makes you liable for the tax.
  So, which religion permits people to be deceived on such a scale? Certainly Atheism permits anything, but so does Judaism when it comes to the law and the management of the Goyim.
Ward Tipton Added Aug 6, 2018 - 9:32am
Doug and Facepalm
The biggest issues seem to rely on the establishment of residency in the federal districts and/or federal areas and other such traps they have laid to place you under federal jurisdiction. States within the States, ZIP codes ... even the birth certificate, though try getting a passport with your birth only recorded in a family Bible ... much less being able to travel or find gainful employment. 
By all rights, we do seem to be pretty well buggered ... even if you are completely within your rights, try not bending to the demands of an overzealous LE agent ... just try not to get shot while you are doing so. 
Ward Tipton Added Aug 6, 2018 - 9:33am
Lindsay and Jeffry,
I have to say that one of the most fascinating things ... and my grandfather hated me even mentioning it, though he certainly never denied it, was watching the progression of the perversion of our nation through his history books and other historical records. 
Illegitimate is a nice way to put it ... but it seems they go out of their way to be blatant bastards about it too!
Ari Silverstein Added Aug 6, 2018 - 10:49am
So in light of the fact you believe the Federal Government isn’t lawful, what will you do?  Stop paying your taxes?  Take up arms and start a revolution?  Elect politicians that wish to reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government?
Depending on your answer, I’m either with you or against you.
Ward Tipton Added Aug 6, 2018 - 11:03am
I was rendered stateless by our dear leaders ... while traveling no less ... in 2012. I have no say in whatever they may do, but as I noted, if you try to fight it from within, you are pretty much buggered anyhow. 
Doug Plumb Added Aug 6, 2018 - 11:30am
History is no path to truth or enlightenment, unless you are a serious scholar and can devote your life to one period, and have no bias. Therefore it can't be a path to enlightenment. Its a path that satisfies curiousity.
re "Stop paying your taxes?" There are taxes then there is the income "tax" which isn't a tax. Pay your taxes, its the law.
Ward Tipton Added Aug 6, 2018 - 11:49am
You have a zip code? You have to pay federal income tax. 
The Buck Act! Any federal area or federal zone. Bam! Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' constitution!
opher goodwin Added Aug 6, 2018 - 2:07pm
Ward - there are no 'God Given Rights'. I don't believe there is a god but even if there was when and how did he bestow these rights?
All this stuff is the work of men from 250 years ago who have not a jot of understanding of the modern world. If they were brought forward in time they'd be completely bewildered and overwhelmed.
Wendy Bugliari Added Aug 6, 2018 - 2:54pm
George Carlin got it right and I quote,
Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls.
They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying,  lobbying, to get what they want.  Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don’t want: 
They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That's against their interests."
Read more here or watch YouTube video
Just repeating/sayin
~The Bug~
Ken Added Aug 7, 2018 - 12:22am
Lincoln, in all of his “infinite wisdom” determined, and perhaps rightfully so in this case, that the only viable means to get everything back in order, was through the introduction of what we now routinely accept as the “Executive Order”.
Huh?  The executive order has been around since the beginning of the republic.  Washington signed 8 of them.  Usage has gone up through the years, and many times very poorly, but they have been around from the very beginning
Ward Tipton Added Aug 7, 2018 - 12:36am
Ken, not for the sake of putting all power into the hands of the Presidency ... including the ability of congress to assemble via executive order. 
Opher - Do you have a right to defend your own life? Who gave you this right? There are certain rights that all humanity ... indeed all life possesses by the very nature of their existence. 
In my case, I put my faith in God having created life. 
In your case, you put your faith in the proven "statistically impossible" nature of life from nothing. (The atmospheric conditions necessary to create a single celled life form also kill that single cell life form the instant it is formed ... thus, the statistical odds of a single cell life form being created by the primordial ooze, while in the very same exact instant, the atmosphere changed moves well into the realm of what science calls a statistical impossibility. Though that is another topic for another article ... though still relevant here insofar as we all have certain rights by the very nature of our existence. 
Ward Tipton Added Aug 7, 2018 - 12:37am
Wendy - George Carlin had a particularly poignant insight into the workings of government and human nature. I sorely miss his wisdom and his humor.
FacePalm Added Aug 7, 2018 - 12:50am
One of the things i've read that can certainly help keep you out of their jurisdiction is to put down your address in a similar way to this:
Joe. D. Public
c/o 1913 Betrayal Street
non-domestic, near
Resistance, Missouri, [86975]
What this does, allegedly, is place your habitation outside of their jurisdiction.  All house address numbers need to come off the house and be placed on a mailbox, instead.
The use of the full name of the State, spelled properly(upper and lower case), does not use their contractions; the brackets around the zip code indicate you are outside the zip code.
What i've done also is to have a stamp made which reads "Misnomer: Return to Sender" for any mail which comes addressed to the all-caps name.
Just informational. 
i'm currently studying the law, but it's a tough slog; statutes generally are deliberately written in obfuscatory language.  i'm taking a course via, mainly because if you ever hire an attorney - an officer of the court - you will have tacitly confessed to your incompetence to handle your own affairs, and thereby placed yourself under their jurisdiction as a "ward of the court," in effect.
Liberty can be won, but not if one declines to fight for it by buying into the slavery paradigm designed for us - and surrendering.
Ward Tipton Added Aug 7, 2018 - 1:23am
Attorney actually stems from the word Attorn ... to turn over ... to declare your incompetence in handling your own lawful affairs (legal or not) and having a representative of the BAR first, and an Officer of the State take you in as a Ward of the State. You are correct there. Also in accordance with Contract Law ... the UCC ... anything inside of a box is not considered to be part of the Contract. When you sign anything with an all CAPS name without putting your name in a box and marking it as ARR (All Rights Reserved) and/or other means of keeping it separate and distinct from the contract, you are buggered ... and if you have ever done so in the past, you have already submitted yourself to their jurisdiction. While you may be lawfully correct, it is a legal system, not a lawful one ... and they still have what it takes to take what you have. 
Ward Tipton Added Aug 7, 2018 - 1:24am
The brackets would not be sufficient, it must be included within a box in order to become separate and independent of their contract. 
James Travil Added Aug 7, 2018 - 1:58am
It took me a while but I finally finished this. Extremely informative. Makes me respect my oldest son even more (he's in law school) because I know he has to tackle this kind of stuff and more. Thanks for sharing Ward. 
Ward Tipton Added Aug 7, 2018 - 2:11am
Thank you for the comments and I can only imagine what your oldest son must be going through. However, I also believe ... and with no disrespect meant ... that the vast majority of Attorneys could tell you any more about the reality and how bad it is than regular Shriners could tell you about the secret world of the Masons. Please understand, as noted, that is merely an observation, and not in any way meant to undermine the challenges facing your eldest son. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Aug 7, 2018 - 2:34am
George Carlin had a particularly poignant insight into the workings of government and human nature. I sorely miss his wisdom and his humor.
FacePalm Added Aug 7, 2018 - 4:41am
Thanks for your confirmation.  i learned the propriety of using "qualified signatures" roughly 10 years ago, now, and can imagine the consternation of various LEO's when they eventually learned the legal meaning of the phrase "non-assumpsit" and/or "Under TDC" and/or "without prejudice" above my signature on their docs.
My current driver's license also has "w/o prejudice" written above it's signature, as well.  One must "know rights or no rights."
If any agent of the state ever asks you what the meaning of the words above your signature actually mean, it often suffices to say something non-threatening like "Oh, it's just some legal advice i got, that's all," and/or "i'm not exactly sure what it means."  Both are true, even though not the whole truth.  Few of us, even if we have excellent memories, can usually recall with specificity the entirety and exactitude of the legal language which defines the phrases.  i have a Black's 6th, myself.
Didn't know about the importance of "boxing," but strongly suspect that the qualifiers would suffice on any contract without them; however, i'll remember to incorporate it, in future - most cops won't have a clue, anyhow, and maybe not even most judges.
Yes, i knew the meaning of "attorn," as well - as best i can recall, it dates back to the Norman occupation of once-free England after 1066AD, and referred to their "legal" habit of "turn"(ing over) the lands of the native English to the feudal Lord set over them "by right of conquest."  To this day, they are agents of the State, turning over as much of your property as they can, in order to keep you in poverty.  The feudal lords themselves only held "title" to their lands and estates as long as they paid their taxes "to the crown."
That ties in to the current "title in fee simple" concept, as well;  when the English first came to this country, they remembered well what had been done to them via that means, and many of the American landholders held "allodial" title, which conveyed TRUE ownership.  Anyone today who has "paid" off their mortgage and received the deed will not find the word "owner" on it anywhere, and this is no accident.  They are tenants with the "right" to pass on their tenancy, conditioned again on "paying your taxes," either by sale or by will and testament...because either Americans forgot, or were deliberately never taught, about the difference and how important it is.
Of course, all the foregoing information should be taken with a grain of salt, at least, for these rely on my memory.
There's a Quaker meeting-house relatively near me; it was once in the center of a large Quaker community, here, but the land - except for that of the Meeting-house - was "turned over" to the military to build a huge base ca. WW1.  To this day, it remains an island of peace in an ocean of military might, but the reason it could NOT be seized was due to it's Allodial title...not even "legally."  Words matter, MOST especially in a legal setting.
Always a pleasure to mine your mind, as it were.  Thanks!
Katharine Otto Added Aug 7, 2018 - 3:07pm
In a word, slavery.
The same idea, from a different angle, involves drug laws.  I have been wondering who owns my body and the right of access to it.  Beginning with the whiskey tax in 1791, the national (federal) government gave itself the authority but not the right, to invade and seize any property under suspicion of illegal activity.  That set the precedent for federal intervention into, and regulation of, all ingestibles.
Good article.  It must have taken a lot of work.  Will I remember what I need to know if I ever need to remember?  No attorney.  Don't stand up for the judge.  Too late not to use a zip code.  Contempt of court?  "You got that right."
I beg to differ about the word "democracy" as used in the United States.  Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America was published in 1835.
Ward Tipton Added Aug 7, 2018 - 9:18pm
My body, my rights? Yeah, try getting the government to "approve" much less getting a federally regulated insurance agency to offer options for holistic treatments and refuse treatment through pharmaceuticals. There are only personal "rights" as allowed by the government after you have asked for permission to "enjoy" your privilege. Zip code, Federal Reserve District, Social Security District, Federal Court District, Incorporated County or City address ... as I concluded, anyone still in the system is pretty well buggered. I am no longer in the system but there has been an extremely high price to pay for that as well ... though I have to admit that I played no part in the end of my "natural life" or the death of my legal fiction. However, I prefer to leave it be and not try to single-handedly attack an entire system that is so well entrenched already. 
PS I would still love your feedback on the other issues we were discussing ... I promise you, my work there is not anywhere near as controversial save the fact that most governments want/require a dependency class and do not want real and viable solutions. 
Ward Tipton Added Aug 7, 2018 - 9:20pm
PPS I will review Toqueville ... not sure how I could have missed that one, though in fairness, there were those among the founding fathers who did want to introduce the nation as a democracy ... I will look for the correlations if there are any. It will give me something to do in my spare time ... if I can get situated well enough. Good catch. Thank you. 
Logical Man Added Aug 7, 2018 - 9:43pm
Excellent stuff.
As Mao said, political power grows from the barrel of a gun.
Makes you think!
You can try to exercise your common law rights, but you will be, at best ignored, at worst imprisoned or killed.
Those in control have hired thugs, the average guy? not so much.
Lysander Spooner is essential reading on this one.
Lysander Spooner - Works
Ward Tipton Added Aug 7, 2018 - 9:50pm
I will check it out. I do not recall the name offhand "Spooner" which likely means I have never read it. Thank you. 
Logical Man Added Aug 7, 2018 - 10:15pm
Ken, here's an interesting thought Mr. Lincoln had....
'Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existance?'
FacePalm Added Aug 8, 2018 - 7:36am
Katherine Otto-
Do you agree that the word "democracy" does not appear once in the Constitution or Amendments?
Ward Tipton Added Aug 8, 2018 - 10:26am
Speaking of references, Logical Man and FacePalm, you may enjoy "The UCC and You" ... it is very informative and contains numerous reference materials. 
Katharine, if you enjoyed ... or not ... but appreciated perhaps is a better word ... Confessions of an Economic Hitman, you may find the UCC handbook equally revealing ... if not more so.
FacePalm Added Aug 9, 2018 - 7:27am
i found "Confessions" to be quite illuminating(no pun intended) in re: how the deep-state NWO/OWG cretins have advanced their satanic agenda in S. America, and by extension, the rest of the industrialized world.  For me, that book ties in to the following citation, as well:
 “Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits(issue "credit," my note), and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control credit."
― Sir Josiah Stamp - president of the Bank of England in the 1920’s and the second richest man in Britain
i seem to vaguely recall "The UCC and You," but i'll run a websearch and see if i can't dl it.  What i do know is this:
"The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)."
-- The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966
Ward Tipton Added Aug 9, 2018 - 8:55am
The Uniform Commercial Code is the General Law of Contracts, also what regulates the SEC in the US and in every nation that has one ... virtually everywhere save the "Axis of Evil" ... in conjunction with the central banking system, fiat currency, etc. The UCC also clearly states that its definitions override any and all other lawful definitions so it pays to know it well, though I am not sure it changes a damn thing. We are still buggered once we are in the system and once you are out, you are incapable of even participating in the financial system to any degree. Danged if you do and danged if you do not. The BUCK Act also makes it lawful to tax anyone living within a federal district or otherwise under federal jurisdiction. Thus. all the trappings to get the flesh and blood men and women to accept their Corporate Strawman and subject themselves to federal jurisdictions. And if the UCC don't get you, Admiralty Law will. 
Logical Man Added Aug 9, 2018 - 5:54pm
Here's another good quote from a banker....
"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws."

Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Ward Tipton Added Aug 9, 2018 - 10:55pm
I think they were more active in taking control of the money ... read the economic and financial systems ... more than they were given control. Though I suppose that it scarcely makes any difference at all in reality. They are still in control. 
FacePalm Added Aug 10, 2018 - 9:21pm
Logical Man-
i have an entire folder that i named "Banking and Money quotes."  The one that explains the Rothschild scion's words a little better, IMO, comes from his son:
"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire.  And I control the money supply.''
-- Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild(1777-1836) London financier, one of the founders of the international Rothschild banking dynasty
Ward Tipton
i was able to find and dl. a .pdf of "The UCC and You."  Haven't taken the time to read it, yet.
FacePalm Added Aug 10, 2018 - 10:00pm
Apologies; i misused the word "scion," which would more accurately describe the son.  Mayer Amschel Bauer would be more accurately described as the "progenitor," i believe.  To live is to learn.
John Minehan Added Aug 12, 2018 - 7:15am
OK, now I get it!
You are one of those "Sovereign Citizen" people.
None of what you are saying is correct.  Let's start with the most basic thing: even under the Articles, the states were sovereign but NOT independent.
FacePalm Added Aug 12, 2018 - 12:07pm
So, when Chisolm v. Georgia says:
"In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution."
-- Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471

or this:
"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."
-- U.S. Supreme Court, Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).
or this:
"It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom, to say, that government is a compact between those who govern and those that are governed: but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist."
-- Thomas Paine(1737-1809)
or this:
"The people are Sovereign. the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."
-- Chisholm v. Georgia
Source: (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @Dall 1793 pp471-472
...that what?  They're all just whistlin' Dixie?
Ward Tipton Added Aug 17, 2018 - 10:59am
John Minehan - 
Funny you should say that, but the US Government is the one that made me wholly sovereign when they ended my natural life ... they ended my legal fiction. Though somehow or another, I am guessing you did not make it all the way through the many different definitions, though I am surprised that you did not catch what the Supreme Court said regarding Legal Fictions in the first paragraph. 
FacePalm - 
Which version of Dixie? The original or the Confederate Anthem? I prefer the Anthem with full orchestra as it is much more stirring.