Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Is Ted Cruz a Citizen?



Is Ted Cruz a Citizen?

February 3, 2016 by Richard Michael


A Little Background

This is a follow-up to my October 31, 2014 article Is Ted Cruz Eligible to Serve as President? Not So Fast!. My conclusion in that article was that I didn't know because there were too many missing facts.


As presidential campaigning has heated up over the last few months, more and more people have come down on one side or the other of Cruz' eligibility for the office of President or Vice President.


Ted's buddies at Harvard fired the first shot with their trivial piece that the Harvard Law Review published.


Donald Trump raised the in August, and then as Cruz has gained on Trump in the polls in January, Trump brought the issue front and center, again.


A ballot challenge was made in Vermont.


I had considered writing again about this subject when I read J. B. Williams' (Canada Free Press) article back in December. It was not Williams' argument, so much as the new facts that he brought to light. After all, all legal issues revolve around law to facts. When the facts are vague or spurious, it becomes speculation.


The immediate reason for writing now is yesterday's decision by the Illinois Board of Elections, responding to a challenge to placing Cruz' name on the ballot. The Board rejected that challenge.

What's Changed




What About Vattel?


Emerich de Vattel was a Swiss philospher who wrote the The Law of Nations in 1758 in French.


The legal systems of Switzerland along with all of Europe, except England, were and are based on Roman civil law. The kingdoms that eventually became England had established their own common law. The legal systems of the United States, with the exception of Louisiana because of its French orgins, are based on English common law, not Roman civil law.


Under Roman civil law, citizenship was established by blood (jus sanguinis). Under English common law, citizen was established by the land (jus soli). In the Law of Nations, Vattel describes citizenship as inherited from the father. That's Roman civil law. Vattel also couches his description with the fact that it applies to most countries. England[xx1] was one of the exceptions.


It's rather inconceivable that the framers of the Constitution, which is written entirely in the context of English common law, would adopt Roman civil law for a single term.


Anyone who argues that Vattel's Roman civil law definition of natural born citizen controls the term in the Constitution is smoking something or, more likely, hypnotized by the purveyors of this nonsense. Once these kinds of myths start gaining traction among people, cognitive dissonance sets in. They will never admit to the error in reasoning. They become true believers.


The United States Supreme Court lays out the distinction between jus soli (English common law) and jus sanguinis (Roman civil law) in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654 (1898). I doubt most of the proponents have ever read the case.





[xx1] "Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner." Law of Nations, §214.




© Copyright 2016, Richard Michael. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Health Care Compact - 21st Century Rube Goldberg Machine



Originally published May 20, 2011. I thought it would die. Now Linbeck has bought fellow Texan, Janine Turner and her partner Cathy Gillespie (yes, that Gillespie), in an effort to revive it.

Quick Facts:
  • Ted Cruz (before running for Senate) wrote the Health Care Compact.
  • Houston billionaire developer Leo Linbeck, III (builds medical facilities) funds it.
  • Linbeck bought Tea Party Patriots support by underwriting their summit in Phoenix on February 25-27, 2011

Health Care Compact - 21st Century Rube Goldberg Machine


You've probably heard of a Rube Goldberg Machine. (Isn't Wikipedia wonderful?) It's something very complicated that does a simple task. Goldberg exemplifies the extremes to which the American mind can go in the pursuit of complexity.


One might consider much of the legislation that comes out of Congress and State legislatures written by Goldberg's proteges. Take the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) for example. It's extremely complex, adds thousands to the armies of government workers, and creates bizarre labyrinths of bureaucracy to, ostensibly, have a doctor administer a pill to a patient.


While Obamacare is widely criticized for interfering with people's living their own lives free from government interference, the Health Care Compact (HCC) simply says that it would rather have the States do the interfering, which they already do, rather than the Feds. The rationale is that the States are closer to the People.


Now, if a politician came up with this scheme (which one did), then I'd have to say, not a big deal. Politicians come up with schemes all the time. Most of their schemes have to do with how to spend other people's money or how to get elected (which is kind of the same thing).


And HCC fits that one to a tee.


State Compacts

HCC relies on a relatively unassuming clause in the Constitution, appropriately referred to as the State Compact Clause. The applicable part of that clause, which is in Article I, Section 10 (third paragraph), says:


No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State ...

When I lived in Brooklyn, I had to deal with a State Compact called the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It charged me money to leave or enter the boroughs and New Jersey by bridge or tunnel. You may know the Port Authority as the State Compact that has taken almost ten years to rebuild at the site of the World Trade Center.


I had the benefit of a State Compact, however, when I moved from a southern State to California and traded in one State driver's license for that of another.


Pretty non-controversial stuff, these State Compacts, except the tolls, maybe.


HCC is based on the premise that the States can conspire, collude, you pick a verb, to take any area of Federal law and opt out, so to speak, by agreement.


It's never been done before, so why not try it? Well, perhaps because it violates the Constitution or just because it's a 'red herring' and a total waste of time, money, and energy. Oh, but I forgot, that's what politicians do -- waste time, money, and energy.


I've posed questions to the backers of this scheme, but the silence has not exactly been encouraging. (As with many of my articles, they are inspired by an e-mail message I receive. I received just such a message on January 31st from a prominent leader of Tea Party Patriots.)


What Is A Compact?

COMPACT, contracts. In its more general sense, it signifies an agreement. In its strict sense, it imports a contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced, and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition

The first compact that you probably learned about in United States history was the Mayflower Compact. It was a special kind of agreement that laid out the rules that Pilgrims mutually agreed to before they disembarked the Mayflower near Plymouth Massachusetts.


So, what exactly does HCC obligate a State to do? And what exactly can another State party to HCC enforce? The answers are nothing and nothing.


So is HCC even a compact at all?


Constitutional Authority

Where in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority to delegate any of its powers, enumerated or otherwise, to the several States? (I don't believe the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate health care or legislate health care programs, but HCC presumes otherwise.)


For argument's sake, let's suppose that Congress does have the power to regulate health care programs. Can Congress just say to the States, it doesn't want to deal with something, like "establish Post Offices," so you (the States) go deal with it?


The Constitution grants powers to the Congress and, conversely, removes those powers from the States. With the power comes a duty. The Congress has a duty "to provide and maintain a Navy."


Can Congress, by its consent, permit the several States to assume its power and duty. If that were the case, couldn't the entire Federal government be eliminated in favor of various State Compacts?


Function of State Compacts

If you look at the existing interstate compacts, they all create governmental agencies that span at least two States. In all those cases, there is a legitimate reason for the interstate compact. In the overwhelming majority of the compacts the reason for the compact is geographic. In the remaining compacts, the reason is mutual assistance or freedom of travel.


HCC proposes that the States create an advisory board (with emphasis on advisory), the sole purpose of which is to subvert Federal health care statutes and regulations. And make no mistake about it, HCC goes after all health care regulation, including Medicare and Medicaid, excepting only health care for United States armed services.


If you are to believe the HCC promotional material, each State joins HCC to remove itself from Federal authority in the area of health care. Then each State can make any laws it wishes to regulate health care within its State. There need be no uniformity in the regulation, nor need there be any consent by other States party to the compact.


So, the purpose of HCC is purely to subvert the apparent, although perhaps illegitimate, authority of the Congress over the regulation of health care.


In every other State Compact, the compact is the law that each State party mutually agrees to and is bound by when it joins the compact. The compacts grant some leave to individual legislatures as to how each State implements the compact, but the legislatures can't just change anything they wish. In HCC, there is no law.


Follow the Money

In describing HCC, the proponents say this:


Additionally, because it would be unfair for citizens of Member States to continue paying federal taxes for health care without any reciprocal benefit, the Compact will allow the Member States to continue receiving approximately the level of federal funding they are currently receiving.

I don't believe any of the existing compacts have any major Federally funded components.


Wouldn't State legislatures like to get their hands on almost a trillion dollars of your money to spend as they see fit?


Using the attachment to HCC, I've put together a little spreadsheet to focus on the money at stake here. That's what HCC seems to be really all about, putting three-quarters of a trillion dollars of your money into the hands of State legislatures.


Wouldn't the California legislature be frothing at its collective mouth to join HCC to get its paws on $72 billion each year? That's more than the budget for the entire State. And the best part is that it doesn't have to raise taxes to get the money.


How about $57 billion for New York? And $17 billion for Massachusetts? Doesn't just looking at those numbers make you start drooling? Well, it would if you're in the legislature of a bankrupt State.


I happen to live in California.


But there isn't much to worry about, except wasting your time promoting this scheme in State capitals around the country. Because Congress isn't going to consent.


The Consent of Congress

Even the proponents and the advisors don't believe that HCC will actually happen. I'm not going to repeat what's already been covered elsewhere, all you need to do is read the other articles out there.



The reason the HCC will never actually come into existence is very simple. Congress will never consent to relinquish its power to spend nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars every year.


So, the whole scheme is really a farce.


In fairness, the proponents, when they came up with the scheme, didn't have the benefit of the recent judicial decisions that have brought the constitutionality of Obamacare into question.


Yet, the proponents are continuing to promote HCC. And to most Americans who are angry enough and gullible enough to believe the spin rather than the facts, the scheme does have its appeal.


Unfortunately, the only people who are likely to benefit from HCC are the politicians who take it on as a cause. It's a great issue (either for or against) to have on your side. And it's also a safe issue because while there may be a few states that actually pass HCC, it has absolutely no chance of gaining the consent of Congress.


Even if HCC passes two legislatures, the minimum to bring a compact to Congress for its consent, it won't become law. The proponents are looking for a majority of States, perhaps 28, to pass HCC before bringing it to Congress for its consent. That also puts the specter of having Congress withhold its consent so far into the realm of crystal ball gazing, that it just becomes what it was always intended to be -- a tool to rally the troops and divert the People's attention and resources from working on efforts that will actually bear fruit.


I know, I know. The proponents want to frame the debate to bring political victory in 2012. But at what cost?


Tea Party Patriots (TPP)

What are you guys and gals thinking?


Here's what Tea Party Patriots assert is its mission.


The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

I submit that HCC is contrary to all three of the core values espoused by TPP.


Fiscal Responsibility

Exactly how is funneling money (mostly borrowed) from the Federal government to State legislatures fiscally responsible? I thought that the Tea Party movement was about smaller government, not just shifting money from one grab bag to another.


Can anyone argue that State legislatures who have driven themselves to the precipice of bankruptcy are more fiscally responsible than Congress?


So instead of an attempt to reign in the spending at its profligate source, TPP would rather cut off its singular head and turn it into a 50-headed hydra.


Constitutionally Limited Government

I know that Congress wasn't granted the power to regulate healthcare. But as Russ Feingold, former Senator from Wisconsin, said about its constitutionality in an interview about Obamacare before it was passed, he felt Obamacare was likely to get past the Supreme Court, as if that were the test for the constitutionality of an act of Congress.


I have to admit that I haven't read all the State constitutions cover to cover. The People who wrote those constitutions, I can guarantee you, weren't thinking about health care when they wrote those documents. The original constitutions granted the States no power to regulate health care or medical practice for that matter.


Those constitutions did not subvert the common law, however. If doctors caused people injury, the People have always had common law actions to recover their damages. The same is true for businesses that fail to live up to their contracts (health insurance policies). And back in those days, the People were not going to be suing the charities, religious organizations, and local doctors associations that ran most of the hospitals just because those groups made an error, however tragic the results, in judgment.


There was no need to regulate health care because the free market would weed out the bad guys and put them out of business.


If a State does have explicit constitutional authority to regulate health care, it's only because of some modern constitutional amendment. In those cases, the People deserve what they have.


In every other case, the only reason the States regulate health care is because the People have not objected to the collectivist view of its legislature that the government knows what's best for you and, instead of protecting the rights of the individual, violates those rights in the name of the euphemistic common good.


Free Markets

So, State regulation of health care goods and services brings health care back to a free market?


There is a good argument that State governments are co-equal villains with the Federal government in the plot to satisfy corporate greed in the health care industry. (Notice how what used to be a calling to help people is now an industry.) It is, after all, State government regulation of "the health insurance industry" (an oxymoron if there ever was one), a modern invention of government, that has created the mess we're in now. It's the States who limit competition. It's the States that mandate what coverages have to be included in health insurance policies. It's the States that permit the frivolous lawsuits against medical professionals. It's the States that tell the businesses what I's have to be dotted and what T's have to be crossed. So where's the free market?


Conclusion

My wish is that Tea Party Patriots withdraw its support for and promotion of this scheme. There's still time to do it before TPP digs itself in deeper with the instigators of HCC.


Politicians will have a field day with this. It gets the masses, on both sides of the political spectrum, riled up. It attracts volunteers, either for or against. And it attracts money, again, both for and against.


Once I got into this, there was just too much to put into a single article. This article is already quite long, so I'm ending it here. My intent is to write at least one more article in the series about the people behind HCC.



Richard Michael is a common law advocate. He conducts teleconferences and presentations covering subjects related to sovereignty, common law, constitutions, case law, and government institutions, particularly with relation to grand juries, lawyers, judges, and voting. Richard also runs Grassroots PhoneBank, a voter contact system, to help candidates win elections without breaking the bank. Patriot groups or individuals or candidates may contact Richard at (909)274-0813.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

The Shot Heard 'Round the World



The Shot Heard 'Round the World

April 19, 2015 by Richard Michael


Forty years ago today, I worked the midnight shift at the United Parcel Service hub in Watertown, Massachusetts. The shift ended at around 3 a.m. I got into my car and drove the few miles to Lexington and parked in a neighborhood somewhat north of the green.


I went to the Lexington Green where a crowd was already gathering. We all waited and watched the reenactment unfold in the dark at around 5 a.m.


I had never been to Lexington before. I had no idea how to get to the Old North Bridge in Concord from where I was.


As the reenactment ended, some of the crowd started walking west. They were going to Concord (about 8 miles away) for the next reenactment. Part of the time we walked through a wildlife sanctuary (a short-cut) along a wide path.


By the time we all got to the Old North Bridge, the sun was up and there was a huge crowd already there. Gerald Ford was going to give a speech near the bridge, so everything was already secured. We couldn't get any closer. We watched from a bluff on the east side of the Concord River.


The path is already there. It doesn't take much to follow. Don't think about it. Don't make excuses. Just do it.


© Copyright 2015, Richard Michael. All rights reserved.

Friday, October 31, 2014

Is Ted Cruz Eligible to Serve as President? Not So Fast!



Is Ted Cruz Eligible to Serve as President? Not So Fast!

October 31, 2014 by Richard Michael


I'm not going to rebut the Yes, Ted Cruz IS eligible to serve as president article using any of the Obama (so-called 'birther') arguments. The Obama arguments are wrong for other reasons, but that, as they say, is another story.


I had seen this article over a year ago shortly after it was published, but now that others are using it as a basis for the validity of the conclusion, it's time to show that the conclusion is false because it is based on false premises.


My deconstruction of this article is that it is based on certain premises, which must all be true in order for the conclusion to be valid.


Here are the premises that Greg Conterio, the author, established:


1. That the law for presidential eligibility is the United States constitution.


2. That the United States Code, specifically 8 U.S.C. 1401[1], controls the definition of natural born citizen.


3. That Raphael Cruz was a United States national on December 20, 1970.


4. That Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson was a United States citizen on December 20, 1970.



Premise 1:

The law for presidential eligibility is the United States constitution.


Is there anyone who argues that the constitution does not set out the law for presidential eligibility? If not, we can stipulate to that.



Premise 2:

8 U.S.C. 1401 defines natural born citizen.


This is a major premise.


It is simply not true. There are Supreme Court opinions, the one that comes to mind immediately and is directly on point is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that state unequivocally that the legislative power (Congress) cannot define or redefine terms in the constitution.[2]


Think about it. If an act of Congress could redefine any term in the constitution, then Congress could define speech, religion, arms, search, jury, property, money, income, or whatever other term was inconvenient at the time.


What Conterio is claiming is fairly illogical. Congress enacted a statute. Therefore, that statute controls the constitution. While in practice, it seems that Congress can do whatever it wants, the courts usually will check it at some point. This is one of those.


The Congress knows this, because the courts have not let it get away with it in the past. That is the reason that Congress invented a new, similar term that it could define -- citizen at birth.


The term citizen at birth is semantically similar to the term natural born citizen in the sense that the former includes the latter. In other words, a natural born citizen comes within the meaning of citizen at birth. The reverse, however, cannot be the case. If it were, it would mean that the Congress could change the constitution by simply revising 8 U.S.C. 1401.


This premise is, therefore, invalid. It follows, therefore, that Conterio's conclusion cannot be valid, since it relies on the statutory term being equivalent to the constitutional term.



Premise 3:

Raphael Cruz was a United States national on December 20, 1970.


This premise is stated as a fact without any supporting evidence. From what I can quickly gather from Wikipedia's Ted Cruz article, Raphael arrived in Austin, Texas in 1957 at the age of 18. There is no indication in the article that Raphael was a United States national before Ted's birth. Raphael became a naturalized United States citizen in 2005 at age 66.


We're missing some facts about Raphael. So let's make some reasonable presumptions. Let's presume that Raphael obtained the status of permanent resident (green card) that permitted him to live and work in the United States (and apparently, Canada) for 48 years. Let's also presume that this made him a national of the United States[3]. Title 8 of the United States Code has gone through extensive changes since 1957, but let's also presume that the sections necessary to make Raphael a national of the United States have not changed.


One more factor that might enter into this is whether Raphael's absence from the United States for more than 180 days changed his lawfully admitted for permanent residence (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20) and 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C)) status. For example, was Raphael in Canada for more than 180 days before Ted's birth?


So, if our presumptions are factually correct, Ted Cruz was a United States citizen at birth under 8 U.S.C. 1401(d)[4].




Premise 4:

Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson was a United States citizen on December 20, 1970.


Since one of the three previous premises were invalid, there's really not much need to address this one. I'm going to address it anyway, because the language of 8 U.S.C. 1401(d) is, in my opinion, ambiguous and open to interpretation.


It's not clear when Raphael and Eleanor were married. From Wikipedia's Ted Cruz article, Eleanor lived in Houston, Texas while going to school at Rice University and worked in the oil industry in Texas thereafter. The article doesn't say when Raphael and Eleanor were married or when they went to Canada, but they returned to Texas in 1974. So, we can't easily tell how long they lived in Canada, where Ted was born.


The language of 8 U.S.C. 1401(d) regarding the citizen parent is conditional. The condition is that the citizen must have been physically present in the United States ... for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person.


The fact that there is a condition means that Congress wanted to exclude some citizens from giving the citizen at birth status to their children. Without going into the legislative history, we can't know exactly who was meant to be excluded. Noting that 8 U.S.C. 1401(d) only applies to a pairing of citizen and national should narrow the scope of the exclusion. I can't come up with a reason for the exclusion without looking at the continuous period language.


Note that 8 U.S.C. 1401(e)[5] explicitly defines the continuous period as at any time prior to the birth (in contrast with 8 U.S.C. 1401(d) which does not). There must be a reason for this difference as well.


Does it mean that Congress intended to exclude children of a parent who has permanently moved outside of the United States, but still retains citizenship? Can the continuous period be at any time in the parent's life? Does prior imply that the continuous period must be in close proximity to the birth?


I don't know the answer to these questions, but there must be some reason for the condition.


The validity or invalidity of this premise, in my opinion, cannot be determined without more facts about Eleanor and without identifying the citizens that the statute was intended to exclude.



Conclusion


Is Ted Cruz eligible to be president (or vice-president) of the United States?


I don't know.


What I do know is that Greg Conterio's article is wholly lacking as the basis for the conclusion that he is.


Conterio's major premise is false.


Does Ted Cruz' status come within the citizen at birth definition of 8 U.S.C. 1401? If the presumptive missing facts about Raphael and Eleanor are correct, then it does.


Clearly, then, the only issue is whether the statutory term citizen at birth in 8 U.S.C. 1401 is equivalent to the constitutional term natural born citizen.


As I said earlier, there is a reason why Congress chose the term citizen at birth for the statute, rather than the term natural born citizen -- Congress cannot define natural born citizen.


Whether Cruz is a natural born citizen brings us back to what that term meant at the time it was written. For a really expansive dissertation on the meaning of the term, see Wong Kim Ark. This was a landmark case and there is extensive additional material about it at University of California Hastings College of the Law Library, including the actual briefs used in the case.


Let's also examine the semantics of the term natural born citizen. Natural implies in or of nature. A woman giving birth is natural. Every birth has a physical location in nature. If citizenship were determined merely by a definition in a statute, that does certainly not ring of nature. The nature of things does not change over time. The term citizen at birth is a statutory definition. It's anything but natural. It's the creation of a legislature. It can change over time. So, on this basis alone, citizenship conferred by statute is arguably not natural.


Based on Wong Kim Ark and several cases that follow it, Cruz' eligibility is arguably doubtful because he was not born on the soil (jus soli) of the United States and his father was not a citizen.



Blame Canada


I couldn't resist. Both articles that promote the conclusion that Ted is a natural born citizen of the United States don't address the Canadian citizenship issue. I'm not sure how dual citizenship would affect natural born citizen status, but let's look at it.


Our neighbor to the north is also an English common law country (excepting, perhaps, Quebec). That being said, its law of citizenship would default to the English common law of jus soli.


I haven't researched the Canadian constitution or the laws enacted by the Canadian Parliament. Let's just say that, because Canada was created in a very different manner than the United States, its constitution and government are much more complex than ours. Up until the Constitution Act of 1982, Great Britain still exerted control over Canada. Even today the Queen of Canada (Queen of England) is still the formal head of state. Nevertheless, there are many provisions of law that are common to both countries. Given that, I'll just extend the logic of the proponents to Canada. (If a Canadian law expert finds any fault with this, I will gladly credit any corrections.)


Before 1947, Canada had no citizenship statutes; Canadians were all British subjects. In 1946, Parliament enacted the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c.15, which remained in effect until 1977. Under Canadian law, Ted Cruz is absolutely a natural born citizen (Canada does not use that term) of Canada, having been born in Calgary, Alberta. It does not matter his parentage, because Ted's parents were neither foreign diplomats nor foreign invaders. While in Canada, the Cruz family was subject to Canada's jurisdiction.


So, can a single person be a natural born citizen of two countries? Under Conterio's analysis, the answer must be yes. But logically, how can one person have absolute allegiance to two countries at birth? If he were elected president of the United States, Canadian's could rightfully claim that he was our first Canadian president.


Can a United States statute nullify Canadian law? Obviously not, unless, perhaps, it were done by treaty. Wouldn't the superior law, with respect to Ted's birth, then be Canadian law?


I've only just touched the surface on this issue here. Unlike Conterio, I certainly don't claim to have absolute answers. It's an interesting situation. The only thing certain is that you can't change the facts. Now if we could discover more of the missing facts, we'd be closer, perhaps, to a reasoned resolution.


Regardless, not everyone will be happy. If Ted Cruz does run for president, there will be lawsuits. The only question is whether the courts will be more amenable to addressing the issue than they have been with Obama.


Ted Cruz is a lawyer. He was the Solicitor General of Texas for five years. He wasn't an obscure law school professor. Why not ask Ted Cruz himself to write the brief to support his eligibility?


---------------

[1] While I haven't done the research, let's stipulate that the language of 8 U.S.C. 1401 has not changed since December 20, 1970.


[2] "The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654 (1898)


[3] "The term "national of the United States" means a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States." 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(B)


[4] "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;" 8 U.S.C. 1401(d) (Emphasis added.)


[5] "a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;" 8 U.S.C. 1401(e) (Emphasis added.)


© Copyright 2014, Richard Michael. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Snake Oil for Sale, Part 2



[Originally published by G. Edward Griffin at Reality Zone]

Snake Oil for Sale:
Whatever You've Got, We've Got The Cure!


The Article "Snake Oil for Sale" by Richard Michael, Sept. 19, 2011, http://tinyurl.com/dhedor completely misses the point.

The four step Reinhabit the Republic Plan (RRP) was proposed by high-ranking members of the military who are tired of taking orders from a corporate CEO, the President of the corporate united states, and who recognize the People as the last chance to avoid a third World War.

In fulfilling this "call to action", the men who wrote the Declaration of the Reinhabit the Republic Plan have, with the assistance of many other patriotic women and men, reinhabited the one true sovereign authority on the land, as the only lawful government of the united States of America in truth.

The immediate goal of the Reinhabit the Republic Plan is:

• Ending foreclosure and bank collection actions immediately (our first and seventh directives)

• Ending tax prosecutions immediately (second and sixth directives)
• Ending invasions, prosecutions and detentions for fictitious crimes against the state that lack an injured party other than insurrection, treason and frauds against the United States (third and eighth directives)
• Ending molestation on the byways (fourth and ninth directives)
• Production of sovereign identification and passports that do not proclaim subject-class citizenship (fourth and ninth directives)
• Restoration of the trappings of proper de jure governance (fifth and tenth directives)
• Restoration of the common law of the Land (third and eighth directives) reigning in of the admiralty color-of-law venue to the high seas (third and eighth directives)
• Restoration of the proper de jure judicial institutions such as the district court of the united States and the one supreme Court as constructed and restrained in the Constitution for the united States of America, c. 1787 (Phase 2, thirteenth through fifteenth directives)
• Reabsorption of the de facto judicial aberrations such as USDC into the de jure institutions (Phase 2, thirteenth through fifteenth directives)
• Permanent termination of territorial government outside of Constitutional limitations, beginning with voiding the Downes v. Bidwell monstrosity (Phase 2, eighteenth directive)
• Arrest and shackling of the District Court of the District of Columbia (Phase 2, sixteenth directive)
• Recognition of sovereign status in the police databanks of the land (fourth and ninth directives) and a lawful and orderly removal of the corporate state as the ruler of every aspect of your life.
We will accomplish all of that – BEHIND THE SCENES — lawfully, peacefully, without violence and without risking civil war.
Phase 2: Restoration of the people’s common law of the land.

With restoration of the de jure judicial institutions in Phase 2, we are also enacting the: ‘Bill of Rights of Law’ to prevent once and for all the "legal" franchise perversions of law into at-law, territorial, admiralty/military aberrations.

There will be no such entity as a non-Article III court, even when administering the admiralty law venue for genuine issues of the high seas and international commerce.

The "Bill of Rights of Law" has been written to address the perversions of law through statutes, Rules of Evidence, and Rules of Civil Procedure which have hijacked the law of the Land for the bar associations and converted the common law grand juries into prosecutorial kingdoms and slandered them as "runaway juries" instead of the fourth branch of government historically charged with overseeing government and protecting against tyranny by government officials.

Even the law enforcement agencies that have become interwoven in the tiniest issues of our lives will see the benefits of a return to the land where they can once again devote their skills to peacefully enforcing law, forever spared the risks of acting as agents for tyranny and the tragedies of assaulting the women and children of the sovereign People, their own mothers, sisters, daughters and granddaughters.

Confessions from the Horses Mouth:

• "28 USC 3002" (definition of the United States as a Federal corporation never taught in civics class; go to paragraph 15) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002-000.html)

• "27 CFR 72.11" (U.S. Inc. defines all crime as commercial as a result of the fall of the republic when the South walked out of congress in 1861 and the de jure congress, unable to raise a quorum, was replaced by Lincoln with the de facto corporate Congress; and the de jure district court of the United States was replaced by the de facto corporate UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_98/27cfr72_98.html)

• "Executive Order 6102" (government’s confiscation of your family’s gold and wealth under threat of 10 years in prison for failure to comply. As the Order specifies U.S. "persons" (eg. JOHN SMITH and JANE DOE), law enforcement was duped into enforcing against the general public a command that only applied to Federal employees and members of the armed forces.) (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14611 or http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html)

• "HJR 192" (outlawing of the simple act of "paying with money" as a felony by substituting the lawyer’s parlor trick of "discharging" debts) (http://www.truthsetsusfree.com/HJR192.htm or http://www.nomoredebt.cc/hjr192.html)

• "Congressman Louis McFadden speech" (indictment of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board of Governor’s for treason by the chairman of the House Banking and Currency committee in 1934. In scathing speeches to Congress, McFadden said: "(The Fed) has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government." This most knowledgeable man on banking also explained in vivid detail the method for recruiting the Federal Reserve to pay our debts as holder of the gold, and which is at the heart of today’s "tax remedies.") (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/mcfadden-frb.html or http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty10.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_T._McFadden)

• "Lewis v. United States 680" (Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned: "…we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA (Federal Tort Claims Act), but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." Lewis v United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982). In other words, the Fed enjoys no United States immunity from law suit because it is a Federal institution in name only. (http://nesara.org/court_summaries/lewis_v_united_states.htm and http://www.geocities.com/chrisforliberty/lewis.html)

• "Modern Money Mechanics" (The Fed’s concise operational manual showing how money AND INTENTIONAL INFLATION are created from thin air by the Fed and its member banks. The manual is very clear as to the power of created inflation to speed the process of confiscating your wealth. The section: "Who Creates Money?" and the final paragraph in "Bank Deposits – How They Expand or Contract" are worth extra attention.) (www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf or http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Modern_Money_Mechanics/Introduction )

• "Grace Commission" (Confirmed that virtually ALL taxes actually go to the Federal Reserve Bank to pay interest on the U.S. debt to the banking families that own the International Monetary Fund (IMF): "With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government." J. Peter Grace, Cover letter, President’s Private Sector Report on Cost Control, January 12, 1984. Peter Grace was considered the Warren Buffett of his time, and the Grace Commission Report received widespread media attention as the gospel of Reagan’s so-called tax system overhaul.) (http://www.freecanadian.net/articles/grace.html or http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm)

• "31 CFR 103.11" (Promissory note is defined as a "monetary instrument:" "(u) Monetary instruments…Monetary instruments include…All negotiable instruments (including personal checks, business checks, official bank checks, cashier’s checks, third-party checks, promissory notes (as that term is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code), and money orders) that are either in bearer form, endorsed without restriction, made out to a fictitious payee (for the purposes of Sec. 103.23), or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery.") (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/julqtr/31cfr103.11.htm or http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/regulations/31CFR103.htm)

• "NYUCC 3-104" (Promissory note is defined as a "negotiable instrument:" "(1) Any writing to be a negotiable instrument within this Article must (a) be signed by the maker or drawer; and (b) contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money and no other promise, order, obligation or power given by the maker or drawer except as authorized by this Article; and (c) be payable on demand or at a definite time; and (d) be payable to order or to bearer. (2) A writing which complies with the requirements of this section is (a) a "draft" ("bill of exchange") if it is an order; (b) a "check" if it is a draft drawn on a bank and payable on demand; (c) a "certificate of deposit" if it is an acknowledgment by a bank of receipt of money with an engagement to repay it; (d) a "note" if it is a promise other than a certificate of deposit.) (www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-104.html)

• "Senate Report 93-549" (The United States has been under dictatorial control since March 9, 1933. Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, Senate Report 93-549, War and Emergency Powers Acts, November 19, 1973. "Foreward: Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency…These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.") (http://www.scratchinpost.net/barefootbob/war_ep1.html)

• "Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)." (U.S. regulations apply only within the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. "It is a well established principle of law that all federal regulation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears.")• "Caha v. US, 152 U.S. 211 (1894)" (U.S. regulations apply only within the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. "The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.")• "U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222." (U.S. regulations apply only within the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. "There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.")

• "Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)." (Purportedly decided if the constitution applies to U.S. territories. In actuality, unleashed the great fraud of unlimited statutory power misapplied throughout the continental united States of America. Dissenting opinion of Justice Marshall Harlan."…two national governments, one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to…a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result…We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism…It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence." In other words, a genuine de jure united States of America congress is always bound to enact laws within the jurisdiction of the constitution. He held to the obvious truth that congress does not exist, let alone have powers, outside the constitution. Harlan said, "This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place.")• "Section 802, Patriot Act". (Defining the People as terrorists. Defining terrorism as a maritime event. Excluding private meetings on the land from terrorism: "(5) the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that—(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.") (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section802.html)

Need I say more?

David Robinson
Brunswick, Maine
drobin88@comcast.net
http://maine-patriot.com

http://mainerepublic.org
http://maine-republic-free-state.ning.com
http://www.RepublicoftheunitedStates.org
How to Sign up On-Line:
http://republicfortheunitedstates.org/user/register

David,


With all due respect, I stated my point very clearly, "to expose the invalidity of the facts upon which the Republic relies for its existence." At the end I challenged anyone to produce the historical facts that refute those I analyzed.


I am also honored that you chose to reply to my article. As I mentioned, none of the inner circle have chosen to respond. I consider you and the other state Republic leader who did respond previously to be honest believers in your cause. My wish is that you consider following my advice from the article about what you should do -- demand that your leaders make the defense, rather than relying on their recruits.


De Jure vs. De Facto


In order for the Republic to claim its de jure status, it must portray the existing governments (all of them) as de facto. You can look up these terms in on-line dictionaries or Black's Law Dictionary or any of the numerous on-line compendiums of legal terms.


The concepts of de jure and de facto are a little more complicated than I thought I could explain quickly in an already lengthy article, but I'll give it a try here. Literally, the terms mean "in law" and "in fact." De facto is a term that most adults have heard before; in its general sense, it simply means that something is, it's a fact. When used in juxtaposition to de jure, it takes on a much different sense. In that context, de facto means illegitimate and de jure means lawful. So, when the proponents of the narrative, all of the proponents, not just the Republic, use the term de facto to describe government, they are using it to define the government as illegitimate. De jure, in that context, means not only lawful, but also, suppressed or out of power, like a government in exile.


Consider, for example, the government of Cuba. The United States didn't recognize the Castro government in 1959 because it usurped power from the Batista government. Castro's government is de facto and the successor to Batista's government is de jure. Other governments in the world don't make a distinction, so in a real sense, the distinction is in the eye of the beholder. One may ask, what authority does an outsider like the United States have to make the distinction? Arguably, none. But the Cuban exiles themselves could certainly make the distinction, which they do.


In order to make its de jure argument, the proponents of the narrative must find a point in time at which a de facto government ousted a de jure government. In this context, both governments must exist at the same time and they can't be one and the same.


The key point in time that the narrative relies on is the 1871 act of Congress that reorganized the government for the District of Columbia. I asserted, and I believe proved, that the narrative simply leaps from the language of the act to an unsupported assertion using its own, made-up-out-of-thin-air, definition of the word organic.


In your response, I see no counter-argument to refute that analysis. In law, assertions which are not rebutted, are proven. Unless you bring new facts, not yet asserted in the narrative, to the table, it's unlikely that you can rebut the plain meaning of the word.


Without the 1871 act of Congress being interpreted as creating a de facto government, there can be no de jure government. Without a de jure government, there is nothing to re-inhabit. Without a government to re-inhabit, what is the Republic doing except leading you down a rabbit hole?


The Restore America Plan


You refer to it as the Reinhabit the Republic Plan. I refer to it by its original name, which is available for all to see on the way-back machine.


Who are those "high-ranking members of the military?" Inquiring minds want to know. The Republic is, ostensibly, counteracting a shadowy de facto government backed by foreign bankers. Are we really being asked to accept a new shadowy de jure government backed by military officers?


And here's where I think the Republic is coming apart at the seams as we speak. It is not simply out to restore a de jure government, it is also out to significantly change that government in the process -- with good intentions, no doubt.


Corp U.S.


The Federal government is a corporation. We agree. So what. It's always been a corporation, but it wasn't created by an 1871 act of Congress; it was created by the Constitution.


You go on with a lot of references. I don't dispute those references for their factual content with one exception (below). I do, however, dispute the alleged significance of those discrete facts when weaved into the whole cloth of the narrative. Like I stated in the article, there are a lot of facts. What the Republic is doing, however, relies on a singular fact that it alleges created a de facto government. With the de jure side of the dichotomy, the Republic is out on a limb with nothing to legitimize its activities.


Downes v. Bidwell


I'm glad you mentioned this case. I didn't want to address it in the article for length considerations. Let's now put this one to bed with a stake through its heart.


Downes v. Bidwell was a case about whether Congress could make any laws it wanted for the territory of Puerto Rico in contravention of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that Puerto Rico was not a State of the United States and that the Constitution did not apply in the case of import duties on oranges from Puerto Rico. (It's always interesting to recognize the real nature of the dispute that was being decided. Downes didn't want to pay a tax on bringing his oranges from Puerto Rico to New York.)


The quotation you cite from Justice Harlan's dissent has been taken out of context. Even that bastion of truth, Wikipedia, does it, so I won't be too hard on you, but it's obvious you haven't read the whole quote in context, so here it is.


The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments -- one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system [182 U. S. 381] of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions. "To what purpose," Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U. S. 176, "are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 380-381 (1901)

You see how that pesky context gets in the way of the narrative? It's right there in the first sentence. Harlan is commenting on a belief of some people, even those who argued the case in front of the court, that Congress operates in two different ways -- one under the Constitution (for the States) and one above the Constitution (for the world at large).


Harlan is not buying it. In the second sentence and the rest of the paragraph, Harlan goes on to say that Congress cannot do whatever it wants, that the Congress is restricted by the Constitution and can't get around it whenever it wants.


Harlan didn't carry the day in Downes. The rest of the court found a way for Congress to impose the tax. It was a tax, after all. And without taxes who would pay the judges and their staffs their incredible salaries and benefits? The courts shouldn't get in the way of taxes (he says facetiously).


Clyde Cleveland, a former recruiter for the Republic, points out on this recruiting presentation that the Downes v. Bidwell statement is taken out of context. You can hear it in Clyde's own words on 5 of 8 Clyde Cleveland: Using Common Sense to Restore Our Republic (January 9, 2011) starting at the very beginning of the clip. But at two minutes in, it's clear that Clyde didn't read the statement either, because he doesn't explain the context of Congress acting on domestic matters versus foreign matters. But at least, Clyde warns about taking things out of context.


So the point here, just so you don't miss it, is this: The "two national governments" phrase from Harlan's dissent in Downes v. Bidwell is not talking about fact, it's talking about opinion of some people, and not the opinion of either Harlan or the court. That opinion is not even about a de facto and a de jure government, it's about Congress operating differently on domestic matters under the Constitution than on foreign matters outside the Constitution.


Need You Say More?


While you need not, I am certainly open to learn of historical facts, if they exist, that support the narrative of the Corp U.S. argument.


And while you may truly believe that a de jure government exists and that you are re-inhabiting it, others, especially those who are injured by adhering to your beliefs, might call it something else much more unpleasant.


So, on the three primary historical issues of fact addressed in the article, I see no rebuttal to any of them. Unrebutted, they are, therefore, proved.


Rather than tilting at windmills, I'm sure all of Freedom Force would welcome you to join us and take back the real centers of power. Local governments are just as out-of-control as the Congress. It just doesn't make the news because thousands or millions of dollars is not as glamorous as billions or trillions of dollars. Join us on Project City Hall.




I'm not a scholar of scripture, but it contains a lot of common sense adages, so I leave you with this final thought.


24 Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell -- and great was its fall!

Matthew 7:24-27


Richard Michael is a common law advocate. He conducts teleconferences and presentations covering subjects related to sovereignty, common law, constitutions, case law, and government institutions, particularly with relation to grand juries, lawyers, judges, and voting. Richard also runs Grassroots PhoneBank™, a voter contact system, to help candidates win elections without breaking the bank. Patriot groups or individuals or candidates may contact Richard at (909)274-0813.


 




 

© Copyright 2011, Richard Michael. All rights reserved.

Snake Oil for Sale



[Originally published by G. Edward Griffin at Reality Zone]

Snake Oil for Sale:
Whatever You've Got, We've Got The Cure!

By Richard Michael

September 17, 2011


USA vs. US


Have you seen this before?


How about ...

  • ... de facto and de jure?
  • ... the original 13th Amendment (TONA - Titles of Nobility Amendment)?
  • ... Congress adjourned sine die in 1861?
  • ... gold-trimmed flag?
  • ... admiralty jurisdiction?
  • ... Uniform Commercial Code?
  • ... ALL-CAP NAMES ARE CORPORATIONS?
  • ... United States has been in bankruptcy since 1933?
  • ... B.A.R. (British Accreditation Registry)?

Seal of the Republic for the united States of America

 

Have friends or associates approached you to join the Republic for the united States of America (the Republic)?



If none of this is familiar to you, perhaps you're living under a cone of silence. Or maybe you're just not getting away from the high-definition television often enough.


Conclusion


I don't want to keep you in suspense, because this is a lengthy article, so I'll start off with the conclusion and then provide the evidence to support that conclusion.


  • There is no basis for the assertion that the Congress has been operating illegally (as opposed to unlawfully) since the Confederate States seceded from the United States.
  • There is no basis for the assertion that the United States of America is a foreign corporation created in 1871 (or any other year, for that matter). There is no secret corporation that is running our government from the shadows.
  • There is no basis for the assertion that, even if the so-called original Thirteenth Amendment were ratified, that attorneys would be barred from citizenship and holding public office.

There.


So what's the problem? The problem is that a significant and growing group of people have been hypnotized by these arguments to explain what is wrong with our country. And more significantly, these people are not only distracting and directing the energy of good people away from activity that will actually solve our ills, but also working directly against those of us who are working on sound solutions.


Purpose of Article


The purpose of the this article is to thoroughly destroy, using reason and logic, some fundamental assertions from what I'll call the narrative. While anyone may have their own opinion, no one is entitled to their own facts, unless supported by evidence.


Earlier this year, several high-profile members of Freedom Force International became visibly and intimately involved with the Republic. I was alarmed because I had been following the activities of the Republic, nee Guardians, almost from the beginning.


It is my intention to disabuse members of Freedom Force, and other potential recruits, of the idea that there is any basis in fact and logic for what the Republic is attempting.


In once sense, I consider that the Republic is a misguided group of well-intentioned people who want to get the United States back on track. I don't know any of them personally and certainly can't determine what is in their minds, except by their outward actions.


In another sense, I can't put it beyond the realm of possibility, although I have no direct evidence, that the Republic is a contrived, controlled opposition movement to the liberty / freedom / patriot movement. This is just the kind of tactic that the opposition would use. Set up an organization that professes to be the legitimate government of the United States and each of the several states. Have that group pull stunts, such as the letter to the governors, that produce negative press. Have that group convince well-meaning and, perhaps desperate, people to join, send money, and spend large amounts of time building and managing this nascent government. And, most significantly, set up the organization on a basis so thin and weak, that it can be destroyed at any useful time by exposing the vacuousness of its foundational principles.


And, perhaps, between these two possibilities lies one in which the insiders of the Republic are merely taking advantage of an entrepreneurial opportunity presented to them by the time and circumstances in which we have found ourselves.


I have no reason to suspect that any of the people who subscribe to this narrative are not sincere in their beliefs. I do suspect, however, that the majority have been hypnotized and misinformed.


The approach I'm taking here is to expose the invalidity of the facts upon which the Republic relies for its existence. There are many, many facts involved, but, as with any foundation, flaws in the initial stages of a foundation make a whole foundation unsound.


There are two prime facts, along with one other fascinating idea, that the Republic has, to put it mildly, misconstrued. In the defense of the Guardians who created the Republic, the Guardians were not the first promoters of these facts. The Guardians were, however, grossly negligent in not doing their own due diligence and independently ascertaining the validity of the line of argument that the Guardians were about to build their organization upon.


A Little History


The Republic started out in late 2009, as far as I can determine. Back then it didn't call itself the Republic. It went by the name of Guardians of the Free Republics (guardiansofthefreerepublics.com [abandoned]). It also used another domain gotfr.org [also abandoned]. Through the magic of the way-back machine at Archive.org, you can visit some of the pages on the archived web site.


The Guardians were Tim Turner, Tom Schaults, Regan Dwyane, and Sam Kennedy. Later the Turner faction and the Kennedy faction had a falling out and Turner emerged as the victor.


The Guardians had a plan -- The Restore America Plan (TRAP). You can read it at the way-back machine. Implicit in the plan was that the Guardians had the backing of some high-ranking United States military, but names, for obvious (snake oil) reasons, could not be named.


TRAP made many promises. Some of those promises were highly predatory. In other words, TRAP preyed upon people in desperate situations, such as, End the foreclosure nightmare, Instantly vest all mortgages, auto loans and personal business loans "issued" by members of the Fed, and End tax prosecutions for resisting the transfer of private wealth to foreign banking cartels such as I.R.S..


TRAP was implemented on April 1, 2010, possibly as early as March 30 in some states. If you were alert at that time, you would have seen news reporters asking governors in many states about the letter sent to the governor by the Guardians. It was all very breathless reporting. Who were these Guardians to demand, along with a whole list of other demands, that the governors resign?


The news cycle quickly dropped it. In communications I've had with a Republic leader, the Republic is very proud of the fact that all the leaders were visited by the FBI and that none were charged with any crime. The government's reaction to that letter is now worn as a badge of honor.


A month or two after the Guardians sent the letter, the governors of none of the fifty states had resigned. Nevertheless, the Guardians declared victory. TRAP had worked. America had been restored, even if it was business-as-usual in every seat of government in the country. The Guardians had now transformed themselves into the Republic for the united States of America (emphasis added). Having a good Internet sense, the Republic also acquired the domain with of instead of for in it. Turner assumed the role of interim president and organization plans started moving forward.


In November of 2010, Turner and coordinators from 36 (maybe 39) states met at Wind Walker Ranch in Utah. The owners of Wind Walker Ranch were in dire straights and were being foreclosed upon. (Remember the TRAP promises?) At that meeting Turner was elected president and the coordinators were sent back to their respective states to organize a republic for each state and settle each county.


I have gleaned most of this history from countless hours of interviews or teleconference recordings, along with published information scattered across many different official Republic web sites.


The Narrative


Many historical facts, and conclusions about those facts, have been strung together in a lengthy narrative by people who wish to explain how this country has gotten to where it is today.


The Republic and others who subscribe to the narrative, allege that the United States (with appropriate capitalization) is a foreign corporation operating under its own rules that look exactly like the Constitution and that it tricked the people into becoming subjects or slaves of this corporation by ensnaring the people in various adhesion contracts.


The purpose of the narrative is to explain to the people how this situation came about with the expectation that if the people know how it came about, the people can correct it and restore the government to its original purpose.


There are many versions of the narrative. Not all the versions are written, and not all are in an easily understood format. I know of a version that starts with King John on the fields of Runnymede. Another version starts with the First Charter of Virginia of King James I. Each version is espoused by a different individual originator who believes that his research has uncovered something that others have missed.


The most popular version of the narrative is published by Team Law. It starts in 1863 with Lincoln declaring martial law. The Team Law narrative appears to be the original publication of the narrative. The narrative is also included in a much more detailed document called Corporatization and Privatizaition of the Government (Form 05.024, Rev. 10-6-2008) published by Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM). (Note: In the link, the narrative begins on page 121 of 168. However, I have two other versions of this document with the same title and revision information. In the version I downloaded on 2011-07-04 the narrative appears on page 121 of 172; in another version I received from a Republic leader the narrative appears on page 101 of 151. Therefore, it appears that SEDM is modifying this document on a regular basis without changing the revision information.)


The Republic, in its version of the narrative, begins in 1788. The Republic narrative heats up at the Civil War era and puts a lot of emphasis on the adjournment of Congress in 1860. (I believe this is an error, Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861 and the new (37th) Congress didn't convene until July 4, 1861.)


There are several inconsistencies in the Republic narrative stemming from the fact that it is incorporating alleged facts from other sources. For example, the Republic narrative points to 1790 as the time when the individual states become corporations, whereas it asserts the United States became a corporation in 1871. The Team Law narrative refers to vacancies in the United States Senate under the Constitution that existed prior to the 17th Amendment. The main inconsistency is that in regard to which governmental acts are considered legitimate. If, for example, the Constitution was abandoned in 1871 for a corporate charter and a de facto government, what import can be placed on a subsequent act of the de facto government. In other words, why not just say everything beyond 1871 is illegitimate? Taking that approach, however, would not make for such an interesting and lengthy narrative.


In all versions, the purpose of the narrative is the same -- to explain how our current situation came about and why it persists.


The entire narrative, regardless of which one you pick, is an explanation of a situation that relieves the people of responsibility for the actions of its government. According to the narrative, the people were tricked by unscrupulous men. And that all those in positions of power continue the deceit to this day, with full knowledge of it, but are unwilling to expose it for risk of their own personal safety and gain.


Sometimes, the simple explanation is the more persuasive. In my opinion, the people are responsible for the government we have today because the people allowed the government to overreach its lawful power. The overreaching was made possible by a flaw in the United States and all the State constitutions. That flaw is that the constitutions do not provide a mechanism for the people to enforce the provisions of the constitutions on the governments they created. (Bob Schulz of the We The People Foundation will dispute this. While I respect Mr. Schulz for his vision, dedication, and energy, he has yet to have his assertions recognized.) The constitutions only provide for the government to keep itself in check. (I believe this flaw can be corrected and I have created a proposal to address it, but that's another story.)


Who Authored the Narrative?


The genesis of this narrative is hard to pinpoint. Over the past 15 years the Internet has helped to diffuse it even further. Variations and sources abound. To make it even more difficult, the people who created it are mostly, purposely anonymous. Once in a while, a person pops up who claims to be the originator. With the Internet and modern communications technologies being their forum, anyone can claim almost anything. So, it's very difficult to evaluate whether or not these sporadic claims are true.


An educated guess is that this primary narrative, on which the variants are based, is probably the work of Eric Madsen of Team Law. His history indicates that he's been around at least from the early 1990's and much of the existing references at some point, link back to him.


Team Law's Standard of Review


To its credit, Team Law espouses a standard of review. Here is what it says about that standard. (See Standard of Review.)


... The next biggest problem is people fail to do their own firsthand research from the source; instead, they rely on third party sources. You must know your own nature and the capacity in which you serve any relationship and you must do your own research from the actual facts and history of the relationship. ...


... Team Law uses this standard for review in every review we do. It is key reason we rarely get anything wrong in our reviews; the other reasons are we always go to the source and verify facts rather than ever trusting any third party information; and, we stick to the law and historical facts.


So there you have it. I'll demonstrate in Fact 2, below, how Team Law can, when necessary, mold the facts by a sleight of hand to draw a conclusion based on nothing but pure conjecture. The moral is that no one's perfect.


Fact 1: Congress adjourned sine die.


Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

 

So what happened in 1861? And what significance does it have?



Sine die is a Latin term. Having studied Latin for two years in high school, I can say unequivocally that the term means without a day. You can also look it up on the Internet if you don't happen to have a Latin-English dictionary handy. What it means in the context of a body like Congress, which operates under parliamentarian rules (the rules of conducting meetings), is that Congress adjourned at some point and didn't set a day to reconvene.


If you know anything about meetings, you've probably heard of Robert's Rules of Order, which is the parliamentarian's bible. No matter what the situation, you can count on finding the answer in the rules, whether you like the answer or not.


The Republic would have you believe that adjourning sine die is an insurmountable problem. If you subscribe to the Republic's premise, no session of Congress since 1861 has been legitimate because of this error in 1861. It's not insurmountable. Firstly, the Constitution actually provides some of the rules, and any meeting body can supplement the rules, if they agree.


Some versions of the sine die theory allege that Congress, after the representatives and senators of the Confederate States left, didn't have a quorum, and without a quorum, Congress couldn't have a legitimate meeting of any kind.


Let's look at the facts.


Map of United States and Confederate States in 1861

 

When the 36th Congress ended on March 3, 1861, there were 34 states, if you include Kansas which was admitted a month earlier. The 37th Congress, convening for the first time on July 4, 1861, would have had 68 senators and 238 representatives if all elected members were seated. Only seven states had seceded prior to March 4, 1861, accounting for 14 senators and 33 representatives. The Constitution (Article I, Section 4, paragraph 2) actually sets the day of the only required meeting as the first Monday in December of each year. In 1861, that Monday fell on December 2, 1861. The Constitution (Article I, Section 5, paragraph 1) requires a simple majority for a quorum. Even when you add the 8 more senators and 33 more representatives of the four states that seceded after March 4, 1861, Congress still could seat a quorum in both houses. Then add to that the fact that some senators from seceded states occupied their seats even after their states seceded. Several of those senators were expelled on July 11, 1861 by a Senate resolution. And some representatives from Tennessee never left their seats during the Civil War.



And if you want to get really technical, if the Confederate States were declaring that they were no longer part of the United States, why would they even be counted for the purposes of a quorum? I recognize that there is a logical conflict here. During the entire Civil War era, the northern states maintained that the Confederate States could never leave the union. However, when the war ended, it took no time at all for the victors to lay conditions on those same states to override their sovereignty and impose conditions on those states' re-entry into the union. All in violation of the very Constitution which purportedly held the states together in a permanent union in the first place. But the salient point remains, that no matter how you view the situation in 1861, there was never an issue of a quorum. The unionist states always had a numeric majority.


So, the issue of a quorum as a reason that Congress could not reconvene after adjournment sine die is baseless. And the alleged fact that Congress adjourned sine die is of no matter because the by-laws (Constitution) of the Congress explicitly set the required date for its annual meeting, if all else were to fail.


And that doesn't even take into account the power given to the President, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House to call the Congress or their respective houses into special session. And that's exactly what Lincoln did to bring the Congress into session on July 4, 1861. (Can you imagine how Congress handled all the business of the United States in only three months of the year back then?)


In my opinion, someone liked the exoticness of a Latin phrase and then went with it to come up with an explanation that makes all acts of Congress from there forward unlawful.


Fact 2: Organic Act of the District of Columbia in 1871.


Plan for the District of Columbia

 

Now we'll address the major fallacy and most significant underpinning of the narrative.



The author of the SEDM document, which is referenced above, does not identify himself, but the content appears to be virtually identical to that found at Team Law. From the changes of style and inconsistent usage in the overall document, it looks like the SEDM document is the product of many authors.


Regarding the 1871 Act, on page 121 of the SEDM document on lines 28 to 38, one finds this.


1871: District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419-429 created a "municipal corporation" to govern the District of Columbia. Considering the fact that the municipal corporation itself was incorporated in 1801, an "Organic Act" (first Act) using the term "municipal corporation" in 1871 can only mean a private corporation owned by the municipality. Hereinafter we will call that private corporation, "Corp. U.S." By consistent usage, Corp. U.S. trademarked the name, "United States Government" referring to themselves. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419-429 places Congress in control (like a corporate board) and gives the purpose of the act to form a governing body over the municipality; this allowed Congress to direct the business needs of the government under the existent martial law and provided them with corporate abilities they would not otherwise have. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District of Columbia. See section 13.2 to see the effect of the District of Columbia Act of 1871. (Emphasis added.)

SEDM generally uses many references to cases, documents, and dictionaries to support its points. This practice enhances the hypnotic nature of the presentation. With so much obscure detail and references, it generates an air of authority that encourages the uncritical acceptance of its conclusions.


When the SEDM document references the 1871 Act, it makes a true statement that the 1871 Act "created a 'municipal corporation' to govern the District of Columbia." On this point, no one can disagree, because the purpose of the act is so clearly stated.


That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government of the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act. [District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419-429]

The very next sentence in the SEDM document, however, is complete conjecture and unsupported by any reference.


Considering the fact that the municipal corporation itself was incorporated in 1801, an "Organic Act" (first Act) using the term "municipal corporation" in 1871 can only mean a private corporation owned by the municipality.

At a minimum, this sentence shows a basic misunderstanding, and more to the point, speculation based on the misunderstanding. The analysis simply breaks down at this point. The author errs when he states that "Organic Act" means "first act." That is simply false. An "Organic Act" is an organizational act (note the root word). Organic Acts are numerous throughout the laws enacted by Congress. Sometimes they are called organic acts and sometimes they are not. (See: Wikipedia: Organic Act)


Why did the author in a document that contains hundreds of references not even look up the phrase "Organic Act" anywhere? How about Black's Law Dictionary? While you may not have a Black's Law Dictionary at hand, a quick search finds this at Excerpts from Black's Law.


Organic Act - An act of Congress conferring powers of government upon a territory. In re Lane, 135 U.S. 443, 10 S.Ct. 760, 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.


Organic law. The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten. That law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government.


That's two references for "organic" that describe the organizational nature of the noun that it modifies. There are other meanings of the adjective "organic", but none of them reasonably apply in context.


And let's not forget that statutes are subject to judicial review. Judges have established rules of review specific to statutory language. The most basic rule of statutory construction is that titles and headings do not control the meaning of the statute, even in constitutions. In fact, many lengthy statutes include language that explicitly restates that common sense principle. Titles and headings are merely helpers for people to organize written language. You can observe that regularly in modern legislation, like the now infamous Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. No court would look to the title to determine what the law means. What counts is the operative language of the act. In 1871, the Congress could have called the act, the Send a Man to the Moon Act of 1871. The operative language of the act would still control and it would be viewed by any court as a re-organization act for the District of Columbia. Reliance on titles and headings in any statute to determine what the law means, therefore, is totally misplaced. The author of the SEDM document should have known better.


Any organization can be re-organized and many are over the course of their existence.


The following is a chronology of the different organizations that have governed the District of Columbia from National Association to Restore Pride in America's Capital.

...


February 27, 1801: Congress divides the [District] into the counties of Washington and Alexandria.


May 3, 1802: Congress grants the City of Washington its first municipal charter. Voters, defined as white males who pay taxes and have lived in the city for at least a year, receive the right to elect a 12-member council. The mayor is appointed by the president.


May 4, 1812: Congress amends the charter of the City of Washington to provide for an eight-member board of aldermen and a 12-member common council. The aldermen and the common council elect the mayor.


March 15, 1820: Under the Act of 1820, Congress amends the Charter of the City of Washington for the direct election of the mayor by resident voters.


July 9, 1846: Congress passes a law returning the city of Alexandria and Alexandria County to the state of Virginia.


May 17, 1848: Congress adopts a new charter for the City of Washington and expands the number of elected offices to include a board of assessors, a surveyor, a collector and a registrar.


...


June 1, 1871: The elected mayor and council of Washington City and Georgetown, and the County Levy Court are abolished by Congress and replaced by a governor and council appointed by the president. An elected House of Delegates and a non-voting delegate to Congress are created. In this act, the jurisdiction and territorial government came to be called the District of Columbia, thus combining the governments of Georgetown, the City of Washington and the County of Washington. A seal and motto, "Justitia Omnibus" (Justice for All), are adopted for the District of Columbia.


June 20, 1874: The territorial government of the District of Columbia, including the non-voting delegate to Congress, is abolished. Three temporary commissioners and a subordinate military engineer are appointed by the president.


June 11, 1878: In The Organic Act of 1878, Congress approves the establishment of the District of Columbia government as a municipal corporation governed by three presidentially appointed commissioners _ two civilian commissioners and a commissioner from the military corps of engineers. This form of government lasted until August 1967.


...


December 24, 1973: Congress approves the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, P.L. 93-198, which establishes an elected mayor and a 13-member council.


Without further research, it appears that the 1871 Act was at least the third, but not the final, re-organization of the District of Columbia. In 1871, the District changed from a mayor organization to a governor organization. When the new District government bankrupted itself in 1874, Congress stepped in to replace it with a temporary commissioner organization. Then in 1973, Congress re-organized the District again and it went back to a mayor organization (so that Marion Barry could embarrass us all).


When you review the chronology, you can see another Organic Act in 1878, just seven years later. One might ask, why isn't this significant? Didn't it also create a municipal corporation? The SEDM document does not address this. It doesn't fit into the narrative. Nor does the 1973 Reorganization Act, which remains in effect to this day, fit into the narrative.


Logically, anything that derives from a false statement, must also be false.


This is not to say that everything in the SEDM document is false. It's obvious that the authors have put a lot of effort into establishing the basis for a lot of objections to the current government.


However, the 1871 Act is used to arrive at a false conclusion, that a second (de facto) government was established in 1871. All the analysis that is based on this de jure - de facto dichotomy, must also be false.


Before concluding the analysis of the 1871 Act, we'll address the Republic's reliance on another source for its somewhat unique narrative. When you view the Republic's History page, look for the almost hidden link just above the section titled The basic terms are:. It's a link to another source, USA vs US, that also lays out the chronology of the narrative. In the section titled Corporation, two United States Supreme Court cases are referenced that purportedly support the conclusion that a corporation called the United States was established by the 1871 Act.


The Supreme Court cases cited in support of the position are Metropolitan R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1 (1889) (a case about whether a statute of limitations should apply to the District of Columbia in a suit to recover expenses it incurred) and District of Columbia v. Camden Iron Works, 181 U.S. 453 (1901) (a case about a covenant, a special type of contract which requires a seal). (As an aside, notice that the municipal corporation, the District of Columbia, is party to these cases, not the United States, as the narrative might suggest.)


There is nothing unusual about either of these cases.


In Metropolitan, the court ruled that the municipal corporation was not a sovereign entity because it was governed and created by Congress. In other words, it was merely a municipal corporation that had to abide by the same laws and rules as any other municipal corporation, so it could not recover from Metropolitan because the statute of limitations applied.


In Camden Iron Works, the municipal corporation tried to get out of paying on a covenant because there was no corporate seal on the agreement and the municipal corporation didn't even have a seal. The Supreme Court didn't agree and held that the seals of the commissioners would work just as well.


So, once again, hypnotism, the uncritical acceptance of an idea, is at work. Throw in a couple old Supreme Court cases that no one will take the time to read, and the conclusion gains instant credibility. The efforts of the owner of USA vs US are a lot less professional than those of the SEDM authors, but the only reasoned conclusion can be that the 1871 Act created a municipal corporation named the District of Columbia. The SEDM authors don't even make an attempt to bridge the jump between a corporation named the District of Columbia and a corporation named the United States.


Fact 3: The Original 13th Amendment


Duke's coronet

 

This is, perhaps, the most interesting bright, shiny object in the narrative.



On May 1, 1810, Congress proposed an amendment to the Constitution to the seventeen (at that time) States. It's commonly referred to as the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA).


If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

The TONA was passed by Congress with the intent to put some teeth into the language found in Article I, Section 9, paragraph 8 of the 1787 Constitution. It accomplished this by imposing penalties -- loss of citizenship and loss of eligibility for office -- on people who violate it.


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. [Article I, Section 9, paragraph 8]

If it were not for two researchers who dusted off an 1825 edition of the Constitution printed by the State of Maine in a little library in Maine in 1983, there would be no story. The legacy of that serendipitous discovery is a story that is simply fascinating and revolves around two wars and the controversial aftermaths. (By the way, that discovery was the impetus for the 1992 ratification of the 27th Amendment, which had been submitted to the eleven States in 1789.) I'm not going to repeat the story here, except to say that the investigation brought to light an 1819 publication of the Virginia Statutes which included the TONA. The publication provides the basis for a conclusion that Virginia ratified the TONA and thereby the requisite number of States (13 of 17) had ratified it.


I've spoken with the TONA Committee earlier this year as a result of other research that I was doing. I have to admit, the TONA Committee's presentation of its findings and its arguments are quite compelling. In my opinion, it's on a par with the historical research and conclusions on which the The DaVinci Code was based.


The challenge for the TONA Committee is that no State or Federal government recognizes its conclusions.


When I was researching Fact 1, above, I came across a reference to the Constitution of the Confederate States of America (CSA) which claimed that it adopted almost all of the provisions of the 1787 Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. This got me to wondering whether the CSA Constitution might shed some light on the TONA Committee's claim, absent the fog of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Acts.


Indeed, Article I, Section 9 of the CSA Constitution, among other provisions, includes, almost word for word, the first eight amendments to the 1787 Constitution in paragraphs 12 through 19. Paragraph 11 is identical to Article I, Section 9, paragraph 8 of the 1787 Constitution except for the substitution of Confederate States for United States. But there is nothing in the CSA Constitution of 1861 that corresponds to the TONA. So, if the seceding States, which included Virginia, did not include the TONA penalties in their constitution, might that not be an argument against it having been recognized as ratified in the War of 1812 era. This argument is not conclusive, however, because Virginia joined the CSA after the CSA Constitution had been adopted. I only raise it because the TONA Committee does not address it, perhaps because no one has raised it previously.


Like I said, the story is fascinating. But what's the point in relation to the narrative? The narrative uses the absence of the TONA and the adoption of the Reconstruction period amendments as further evidence that Corp U.S. is not operating under the 1787 Constitution, but under a different, but confusingly similar, Constitution. (See: Corporatization and Privatizaition of the Government, p. 122.)


This assertion in the narrative is another of those slippery points. The Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in 1865. And the remaining Reconstruction amendments were ratified by 1870, prior to the passage of An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia on February 21, 1871. By 1871, the three Reconstruction amendments were widely accepted as the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. So the connection between the so-called original Thirteenth Amendment and the alleged incorporation of the United States in 1871 is, at a minimum, strained.


But what's the point? Well, the bigger point depends on what the TONA means. This is the interesting and fascinating shiny, bright object that the narrative dangles in front of people. The promoters of the narrative interpret the TONA to prohibit lawyers from holding any public office of the United States or of the several States. (See: Legal Brief Explaining the Scam, linked from Corporatization and Privatizaition of the Government, p. 122.) Please note, the TONA Committee, to its credit, does not endorse this or any other interpretation.


If it were not for this interpretation, the TONA would be a big so what! Here is the gist of the argument, taken from the Legal Brief.


16. The title "Esquire," which Attorneys have freely adopted and claim, is a "title of nobility or honor." They have no right to be a citizen of the united States, and cannot hold any office of trust or profit. All laws passed by a Senate, or a House of Representatives, that has a sitting member who claims the title of Esquire, or any other Title of Nobility, are null and void.


17. When an Attorney is admitted to the "Bar" they are granted the title "Esquire." In England a knight held the title of "Squire" and his armor bearer was granted the title "Esquire". King George, of Revolutionary War fame, established the International Bar Association (IBA) and authorized the IBA to grant the title of Attorney and the associated title, Esquire, to all Lawyers who joined the IBA. Because the International Bar Association, to which the other Bar Associations, ABA and State Bars belong, still grants the titles of "Attorney" and "Esquire" as approved and permitted by the King, or Queen of England the titles "Attorney" and "Esquire" are titles of nobility granted by the King or Queen of England.


Again, whoever, originated this part of the narrative, makes a claim with only the most tenuous link to fact and reason. So what does esquire mean?


esquire n. [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king's courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys. Indeed the title, in addressing letters, is bestowed on any person at pleasure, and contains no definite description. It is merely an expression o[f] respect. [Webster's 1828 Dictionary] (Emphasis added.)


knight n. 1. Originally, a knight was a youth, and young men being employed as servants, hence it came to signify a servant. But among our warlike ancestors, the word was particularly applied to a young man after he was admitted to the privilege of bearing arms. The admission to this privilege was a ceremony of great importance, and was the origin of the institution of knighthood. Hence, in feudal times, a knight was a man admitted to military rank by a certain ceremony. This privilege was conferred on youths of family and fortune, and hence sprung the honorable title of knight, in modern usage. A knight has the title of Sir. [Webster's 1828 Dictionary]

Regarding the use of Esquire, as an expression of respect, examine the envelopes and letters written by almost anyone in the 19th Century. I suggest that Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), no fan of either lawyers or Congress, would be a suitable example to establish the validity of Webster's assertion. In this transcription of Mark Twain - Personal Correspondence, you can see how each party in the exchange addressed each other as Esquire, though none of the parties were, in fact, attorneys.


Further, the American Bar Association (ABA) was founded in 1878 and is, truly, a voluntary association. Those who join pay dues and no State or Federal jurisdictions requires membership in the ABA in order to practice law.

As for the State bar associations, there are a hodgepodge of organizations. There is a difference between being admitted to the bar, which is the ability to practice law in a particular State or Federal jurisdiction, and being a member of the bar or bar association. It's confusing because different States have different rules, but being admitted to the bar is a court, and sometimes also a State, requirement. Where the practice of law is regulated, it is called an integrated bar. Integrated bars first appeared in the United States in the 1920's. And neither bar admission nor membership confers a title of any kind. It may be appealing to a large segment of the population to echo the sentiment of a character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. But look at how far you have to stretch to subscribe to the conclusion that, in 1810, and again in 1871, the Congress recognized not only that the TONA had been ratified, but also that it penalized lawyers and prohibited lawyers from holding public office. That's the kind of stretch of reasoning needed by the narrative, especially since bar associations, as we know them today, didn't exist back then.


Because the term nobility is nowhere defined in the Constitution, we need to go to other sources. While I was not able to find a United States Supreme Court case that defines nobility, we can go to some generally recognized sources.


nobility. n.

2. Antiquity of family; descent from noble ancestors; distinction by blood, usually joined with riches.


3. The qualities which constitute distinction of rank in civil society, according to the customs or laws of the country; that eminence or dignity which a man derives from birth or title conferred, and which places him in an order above common men. In Great Britain, nobility is extended to five ranks, those of duke, marquis, earl, viscount and baron.


4. The persons collectively who enjoy rank above commoners; the peerage; as the English nobility; French, German, Russian nobility. [Webster's 1828 Dictionary]


NOBILITY. In English law. A division of the people, comprehending dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, and barons. These had anciently duties annexed to their respective honors. They are created either by writ, i.e., by royal summons to attend the house of peers, or by letters patent, i.e., by royal grant of any dignity and degree of peerage; and they enjoy many privileges, exclusive of their senatorial capacity. 1 Bl. Comm. 396. [Black's Law Dictionary, 1st Ed., 1891]


After examining the definitions of esquire, knight, and nobility, you can glean a kind of hierarchy. The nobility are a select group of people of privilege for themselves and their descendants. A knight is not part of the nobility, but is one permitted to bear arms. That's quite a big deal, if you don't already have that natural right, as we do here in the United States. And an esquire is merely an attendant to a knight. So, while knighthood may be a big deal to Paul McCartney, Elton John, and Mick Jagger, the People, as sovereigns, are already above that level. So, even if one can attach esquire, as a title, to lawyers, lawyers are not nobility, in any sense of the word. In America, nobility requires that you be in the movies or on television!


Before concluding this section, I want to point out there is some ambiguity in the language of the TONA. This ambiguity is in the object of the list of verbs -- any title of nobility or honour. This clause could reasonably be read two ways resulting in two slightly different meanings. One could read it in this way any title of (nobility or honour) or this way any (title of nobility) or (honour). The difference is whether honour is intended to mean a type of title or whether it is intended to be broader than a mere title. In either case, it is clear from the definitions, that while the honorable title of knight may be either a title or an honor, the knight's servant (esquire) has so such designation.


So whether or not the TONA was ratified, a reading of its language that esquire is such a title and that lawyers get this title from the English monarch is without a basis in either fact or law. In my opinion, this interpretation of the TONA is a modern fabrication to fit a pre-determined outcome.


Is the United States a Corporation


So is the United States government a corporation? And are all of the fifty state governments corporations as well?


Don't be surprised by an affirmative answer.


The United States, as established in 1787 by the Constitution, has all the characteristics of a corporation. It has incorporators (the people), a charter (the Constitution), a purpose (the Preamble), officers (Article II), directors (Article I), shareholders (the people), by-laws (the Constitution), and a seal.


"CORPORATION 6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447." [Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition]


Corporations are legal fictions that permit organizations to take on a persona so that people and legal personae can transact business with them as a single entity rather than as individuals. The issue raised by the narrative is not that the United States and the several states are corporations, it's that they are somehow secret, private, foreign corporations with some unseen hand guiding them. That certainly could be true, but there's nothing significant about it. People in positions of money and power are always operating behind the scenes and undoubtedly guide governments through influence exerted upon the people who act as agents of the government, whether elected or not.


Because the several states and the United States are each sovereign within the domain granted to them by their constitutions, they are also foreign corporations, each with respect to the other. This is unlike a corporation created under the laws of the several States and the United States, which are domestic with respect to the government under which laws it was created. So just as a New York corporation is foreign with respect to the State of Florida, so too is the United States corporation foreign with respect to each of the several States. Note also that in this aspect, corporations do not have the same rights as the people, who can change domicile at will, of the several States. Because they are creations of law, corporations are subject to the laws of the several States.


Team Law Original Jurisdiction Government


Based on its narrative, since 1993, Eric Madsen of Team Law has seated original jurisdiction (de jure?) governors and national senators. What gives the Republic exclusive ability to create its own separate government? Team Law was the first to do it and is still doing it. Even under the de jure argument, how can one rationalize two de jure governments?


Apparently Madsen and Turner have been aware of each other for quite some time. It also appears that there is animus between the two as evidenced by a very recent post,
The Agent Provocateur, Tim Turner, claims to be the nation's President. When you click that link, you'll notice how Madsen, a possible originator of the narrative, characterizes Turner as PredatoryMarketerTT.


So, here Madsen warns people against the newcomer, Turner, and his Republic scheme.


Settling the Counties


And there is a lot to question about the Republic beyond the underpinnings of the narrative that I have addressed here. A significant part of the Republic organizational plan is to re-settle the counties of each state. It appears, from what is written and said about this at the various Republic web sites, that this concept is based on the idea that the counties are the building blocks of the states.


In written queries to the Republic, I questioned the basis for its fixation on county constitutions. Those queries have gone unanswered.


There is absolutely no historical basis for this of any kind. The original colonies and every subsequent territory and state were all created from the top down. No where is there support for the concept that counties got together and created states. It was always the state that divided its territory into counties for local administration. Many state constitutions, such as Oregon's, actually provide rules for county organization.


So where does this settling counties idea come from? I don't know. I can surmise, however, that many of the promises made by the Republic depend on control of the county apparatus for title to land, access to judicial remedies, and recordation of legal documents. In order to fulfill that promise, the county government would have to be controlled, since no state governments administer land and other property in the way that counties do.


Conclusion Reprise


The underpinnings of the narrative of Corp U.S., which has spawned the de facto versus de jure argument, is completely lacking in factual basis. The narrative is based on a leap that is not supported by any facts. Most likely, one author, possibly Madsen, made this leap many years ago. Others leaped with him, like lemmings, over the same cliff. I'm sure I am not the only one who has spotted this conjecture, but I'm not aware of anyone who has challenged it in a written form, like this.


When all else fails, Madsen and Turner and many of their followers all turn to scripture or religion or belief. I submit that that is not sufficient to change the direction this country has been headed for a very long time. Whether or not they are sincere in their belief makes no difference. The ultimate outcome is that the very Constitution that the Republic purports to defend will not come to its aid in supporting its scheme.


There are many persuasive people in the world. Some use their powers of persuasion for the selfish benefit of themselves. When they injure others by their persuasion, under the common law, they are liable for damages to those injured.


I challenge anyone who subscribes to the narrative to produce the facts that support any of the items I've addressed in this article.


What Should You Do?


If you are a member of the Republic, challenge your leaders to produce the facts. Don't let them resort to scripture or religion or belief, unless you adhere to them as your spiritual leaders as well.


If you are a leader in the Republic organization, consider your common law liability for propagating a scheme that might be considered by some to be fraudulent.


Recent events have come to my attention that suggest there are fissures in the Republic organization. My wish is for the Republic's peaceful and early demise.


There are others of you who may not be connected with the Republic, but you are part of an organization that is proceeding on the basis of the narrative or one its versions. Reconsider what you are doing if the premise of what you are doing is based on the underpinnings of the narrative discussed here. You have, in all likelihood, been hypnotized. Snap out of it!


If you have friends or associates who have subscribed to one form or another of the narrative, use this article to challenge them as to the basis of the scheme under which they are operating. This is not harmless. It divides the very people who would otherwise be working in concert toward achieving governments operating under the charters that created them rather than above them.



Richard Michael is a common law advocate. He conducts teleconferences and presentations covering subjects related to sovereignty, common law, constitutions, case law, and government institutions, particularly with relation to grand juries, lawyers, judges, and voting. Richard also runs Grassroots PhoneBank™, a voter contact system, to help candidates win elections without breaking the bank. Patriot groups or individuals or candidates may contact Richard at (909)274-0813.


 




 

© Copyright 2011, Richard Michael. All rights reserved.