"Right Knowledge" for "American Law" Part II
The foundation of the entire structure of Anglo-American constitutional liberties + "Free Crash Course in the Constitution".
Date: 7/15/2015 12:56:10 AM ( 7 y ) ... viewed 990 times
April 9, 2022 - Regarding "This Constitution" -
Comment posted by:
"woman: janmarie April 9, 2022 at 6:44 PM"
"the Constitution was never signed.
the only Signers are WITNESSES.
end of final paragraph:
'...the United States of America the Twelfth IN WITNESS whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names...'
Witnesses are not 'party' to whats written and that then makes the Constitution as fake as the Birth Certificates and FEDERAL Reserve Notes!!!"
March 24, 2022 -
"Nobody born on American soil should be presumed to be any form of United States Citizen, U.S. Citizen, citizen of the United States, or Municipal United States PERSON.
All United States District Attorneys are to be on-call and required to produce admissible and verifiable evidence in all District Court cases necessary to ascertain the actual political status of Defendants/DEFENDANTS and are also required to prove voluntary and knowing acceptance of Federal citizenship obligations on the part of Defendants in order to establish jurisdiction for any District Court or enfranchised State-of-State Superior Court.
March 23, 2022 -
Where is the verified, verifiable and admissible evidence that this man had knowingly, voluntarily without duress of any kind and with full-disclosure self-assigned a legal/political status for himself of: "citizen of the United States", "United States citizen", "US citizen" or the like? .........
April 25, 2020 - When We Are Born, We Are Not 'Citizens' of Anything! -
"When we are born we all enter the world via the soil jurisdiction of our state, and are in the political status of a 'man of the soil' known as 'jus soli' or a 'state national'.
This determines our basic nationality. We are, for example, 'virginians' and because we are 'virginians' we are also considered 'Virginians'. This in turn identifies us as 'Americans' for international purposes.
When we are born, we are not 'citizens' of anything.
Being a 'citizen' implies an obligation to serve a government. It is patently ridiculous to claim that a newborn baby has an obligation to serve any government, nonetheless, certain disreputable governmental services corporations have made exactly such claims against babies born in America for several generations. This is part of what we need to address.
It is the 'jus soli' status of the baby that leads to the political status at the State level of State National. Neither one have any obligation to serve any government at all; they are required to obey the Public Law and keep the peace and other than that, they are free as birds.
The basic dictum of the national soil jurisdiction is, 'Harm none and be harmed none.'"
March 26, 2022 - Lesson #11 of the "Basic Course of Law and Government" by Dr. Ed Rivera at the "Organic Laws Institute" -
Organic Laws Institute – Basic Course of Law and Government - Lesson Eleven By Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera - REDUCING OR ELIMINATING ENTIRELY INCOME, REAL and PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES -
The phrase "We the People of the United States" in the Preamble to the Constitution of September 17, 1787 was intentionally added in order to create the mistaken belief that “this Constitution” applied to the individual "free inhabitants" living in the original 13 States of the Confederacy. The "People of the United States" refers to the people occupying territory owned by the United States of America. Hence, "this Constitution" was ordained and established "for the United States of America."
July 15, 2015 -
Did you know that natural-born private Americans who are not receiving income from a government privilege are not required to "voluntarily" make tax payments?
"Since the signing of Magna Carta 800 years ago, it has been a well established principle of self-government among the English speaking people that the people must consent to their taxes."
In other words the consent of the people is most certainly required before government can lawfully tax the people.
There is "nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery"
I most highly recommend taking up a study of the four "Organic Laws" (for the United States of America) as a whole set. By doing so one may see the most foundational and authoritative progression of both the "well established principle of self-government" as well as the "rules of law limiting the authority and discretion of" government taxation throughout the United States.:
"The liberties of the American citizen depend upon the existence of established and known rules of law limiting the authority and discretion of men wielding the power of government. Magna Carta announced the rule of law; this was its great contribution. It is this characteristic which has provided throughout the years the foundation on which has come to rest the entire structure of Anglo-American constitutional liberties."
August 3, 2015 -
In addition to the Organic Laws there are Lawful yet hidden origins of the Federal tax code that can also be enlightening to know. For instance in 1898 Chief Justice Fuller described the 14th Amendment citizenship rule in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
John W. Benson explains "... if you are a 14th Amendment 'citizen', you are a serf on the land, a liege to your lord, in this case the Federal Government. The Federal Government, as it would to a serf, 'owns' your labor and can rightfully take your income now (the compensation for your labor) as it deems reasonable according to the contractual benefits you 'applied for' when you 'volunteer' or 'contract' yourself into this status. ... How do you 'volunteer' yourself to become a 14th Amendment citizen-serf, under the definition designed for freed slaves? Well, by 'voluntarily' submitting your IRS Form 1040, you annually assert that you are a 14th Amendment citizen ... The 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, but does not prohibit 'voluntary' servitude according to contract law...."
August 7, 2015 -
The following are eights "raw" notes that are primarily concerning the State of California codes (and related references) all of which I have yet to personally verify.
1. REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE - RTC
DIVISION 2. OTHER TAXES [6001 - 60709] (Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1968, Ch. 279.)
PART 1. SALES AND USE TAXES [6001 - 7176] (Part 1 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 36.)
CHAPTER 2. The Sales Tax [6051 - 6189] (Chapter 2 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 36.)
ARTICLE 1. Imposition of Tax [6051 - 6055] (Article 1 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 36.)
6051. For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers at the rate of 2 1/2 percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in this state on or after August 1, 1933, ...
(Amended by Stats. 1991, Ch. 117, Sec. 2. Effective July 16, 1991.)
[Notes: Underline added; the "State of" California" sales tax rate is now 7.5%, and the maximum "State of" California sales tax after local surtaxes is 9.75%; see also Note 7.]
2. California Legislature:
"... for both federal and state tax purposes the incidence of the California sales tax is upon the retailer for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail and is not upon the purchaser." - Statutes 1978, Chapter 1211, Section 19.
[Notes: Emphases added; re the Sales Tax Act of 1933.]
3. California Code of Regulations:
Barclays Official California Code of Regulations
Title 18. Public Revenues
Division 2. State Board of Equalization - Business Taxes
Chapter 4. Sales and Use Tax
Article 18. Administration - Miscellaneous
§ 1700. Reimbursement for Sales Tax.
(a) Reimbursement for Sales Tax.
(1) Addition of Sales Tax Reimbursement. Whether a retailer may add sales tax reimbursement to the sales price of the tangible personal property sold at retail to a purchaser depends solely upon the terms of the agreement of sale.
(2) Presumptions. Certain presumptions concerning the addition of sales tax reimbursement are created by Civil Code Section 1656.1. It shall be presumed that the parties agreed to the addition of sales tax reimbursement to the sales price of
tangible personal property sold at retail to a purchaser if: ...
[Note: Emphases added.]
4. CIVIL CODE - CIV DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 - 3272.9] (Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14.)
PART 2. CONTRACTS [1549 - 1701] (Part 2 enacted 1872.)
TITLE 3. INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS [1635 - 1663] (Title 3 enacted 1872.)
1656.1 (a) Whether a retailer may add sales tax reimbursement to the sales price of the tangible personal property sold at retail to a purchaser depends solely upon the terms of the agreement of sale. It shall be presumed that the parties agreed to the addition of sales tax reimbursement to the sales price of tangible personal property sold at retail to a purchaser if: ...
[Note: Emphases added.]
5. Constitution for the united States of America:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, ..." - Article I., Section 2., Clause 3.
6. Constitution for the united States of America:
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." - Article I., Section 9., Clause 4.
7. REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE - RTC
DIVISION 2. OTHER TAXES [6001 - 60709] ( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1968, Ch. 279. )
PART 1. SALES AND USE TAXES [6001 - 7176] (Part 1 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 36.)
CHAPTER 1. General Provisions and Definitions [6001 - 6024] (Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 36.)
6017. "In this State" or "in the State" means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America. (sic)
(Added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 36.)
[Note: Underline added.]
8. California Code of Regulations:
Barclays Official California Code of Regulations
Title 18. Public Revenues
Division 2. State Board of Equalization -Business Taxes
Chapter 4. Sales and Use Tax
Article 10. Matters Involving The Federal Government
§ 1616. Federal Areas.
(a) In General. Tax applies to the sale or use of tangible personal property upon federal areas to the same extent that it applies with respect to sale or use elsewhere within this state.
[Note: Underline added; see Note 7.]
September 11, 2015 -
Ed Rivera’s 2015 Free Crash Course in the Constitution -
"There are four laws so important in American law they are called 'the Organic Laws of the United States of America.' Chances are you’re only aware of two of those laws: the first is the Declaration of Independence dated July 4, 1776 and the fourth is the Constitution of the United States dated September 17, 1789.
The second Organic Law is the Articles of Confederation dated November 15, 1777. The third Organic Law is the Northwest Ordinance dated July 13, 1787. These two relatively unknown Organic Laws determine whether or not you’re completely free or you are subject to the whims of government. If you are only aware of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution you are one of the multitudes who are being ruled by broken government.
Just knowing there are four Organic Laws does not make you free you have to know how those laws work to make some free and others the subjects of a broken government. The first thing you have to know is that all four Organic Laws together make up a Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution of the United States is called that because it contains the system of government for the territory that belongs to or is controlled by the United States of America. The 'United States' is the name that has been given to all the territory and property belonging to the United States of America.
The Declaration of Independence stated the resolve of the American people to forever sever political ties with the monarchy of Great Britain that ended joint property ownership with King George III. The royal domain of England in America officially ended with the Treaty of Paris of September 3, 1783. A substitute government 'domain' was substituted on June 21, 1788 when the ninth State ratified the Constitution. This imagined authority over all people and property in the United States of America required that the Articles of Confederation to be eliminated from the four Organic Laws, so everyone in law and government pretends the Constitution repealed and replaced the Articles of Confederation.
Article 4 of the Articles of Confederation requires every State of the Union to recognize and respect the independence of every inhabitant who elects not to be ruled by government. So you can see why no one in government or the law wants to recognize the validity of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles can’t be gotten rid of because they and the States are the foundation upon which the United States of America is built, if you get rid of the Articles you lose all the United States of America stands for. The free, sovereign and independent States of the Union established by the Articles of Confederation owe a duty to those inhabitants who choose freedom over subservience to government to know and enforce all the Organic Laws.
The American Civil War was the result of the failure of the Southern States to realize that the basis of all freedom in the United States of America was the right of the people to withdraw from government. Had that unalienable right been invoked instead of the dubious right of State secession from the Union the carnage that resulted from the War Between the States would not have occurred. Because the issue of government enforced human slavery has not been directly addressed that problem gets worse.
Slavery has plagued mankind for centuries because it is a problem that can only be solved by education and we all know education everywhere is under the control of government. To release the hold and control government has on education requires better private education in the subjects of law and government.
The educational program I have put together surpasses any comparably priced legal education available anywhere. Students who complete my 'Basic Course in Law and Government' can confidently read written law without being shocked by what they see. Judges routinely and consistently misread the law in order to protect the State. We may not be able to throw all these bums out, but we can certainly disqualify ourselves as jurors in their courts. This will hasten the return of common law courts and juries."
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Sept. 12th, 2015 -
with many interesting comments including an excellent letter declaring free inhabitant status that was drafted by Professor Ed Rivera!
September 29, 2015 -
Posted the following comment to:
'Most expensive regulation in history'
New Obama power grab set to kill 1.4 million jobs
I understand how people apparently follow the line of thinking that I see presented here without
questioning the lawful jurisdiction of an executive dictate. The root problem behind the commercial concerns (indicated in this instance) is a gross lack of knowledge on the crucial issue of proprietary jurisdiction. There may be "88 counties in (Ohio) state" however the greater land mass is most certainly not owned by the "United States" Federal government! Yet there appears to be no sense of boundaries among the "business owners" to limit the encroachment of the federal government! I wonder if the American business owners will allow the government destroy their business? (The thought of that could really piss me off and I have to restrain my mind from going there ; ~)
The people parish for lack of knowledge and in this instance it is a terrible lack of knowledge of the Organic Laws:
May the Light of true American Freedom shine ever more brightly now!
Oct. 14th, 2015 -
Just sent a message to adventures in sovereignty regarding whether they present their material with regard for the four Organic Laws. Following is part of my inquiry:
"... certain veil-penetrating knowledge of the whole set of the four Organic Laws gives me (and other students) much greater insight in regards to the last Organic Law and it's lawful but very limited application. This knowledge is truly a ';game changer'! Consequently - reliance on the 'Constitution' without understanding and regarding the greater context that only comes with the other three Organic Laws is insufficient!"
October 19th, 2015 -
Most of us who attended government's public school class of civics were taught only about the first and fourth Organic Law and those who did get some teaching on the second Organic Law were taught that it was replaced by the "Constitution" (of September 17th, 1787). However, the Continental Congress did not authorize a replacement but rather a reform as historically indicated in the phrase:
"the convention of the states for the reform of the confederacy"
January 7, 2017 -
Establish your superior status as an American Citizen (over the status of United States citizen).:
September 10, 2017 - A Substantial reply from the Library of Congress -
"A Concise Guide to Using Dictionaries from the Founding Era to Determine the Original Meaning of the Constitution"
by Gregory E. Maggs
Professor Gregory says:
“This is the fourth in a series of articles I have written on sources of the original meaning of the Constitution. The three other articles are: A Concise Guide to the Federalist Papers as a Source of the Original Meaning of the United States Constitution, 87 B.U. L. REV. 801 (2007) [hereinafter Maggs, Guide to Federalist Papers]; A Concise Guide to the Records of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 as a Source of the Original Meaning of the U.S. Constitution, 80 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1707 (2012) [hereinafter Maggs, Guide to the Federal Convention]; and A Concise Guide to the Records of the State Ratifying Conventions as a Source of the Original Meaning of the U.S. Constitution, 2009 U. ILL. L. REV. 457 [hereinafter Maggs, Guide to the State Ratifying Conventions].”
Published in: George Washington Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Paper No. 2014-17 GW Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-17
April 2014 Vol. 82 No. 2
The most persistent ground for criticizing judicial opinions and scholarly articles that rely on dictionaries from the Founding Era is that dictionary definitions, even if they are completely accurate, are insufficient by themselves to decide many constitutional issues.[i] Even faithful originalists who are committed to ascertaining the original objective meaning of the Constitution should acknowledge the validity of this point in many cases. For example, a late eighteenth-century dictionary cannot resolve the meaning of a term in the Constitution if the Constitution does not use the term in accordance with its ordinary meaning. This situation may occur when the Constitution redefines a term to give it a special meaning. We now know, for instance, that when the Constitution uses the term ‘state,’ it is referring to something that might be properly defined as ‘one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government.’[ii] But at the time of the Founding, this specific meaning was generally unknown to lexicographers because the Constitution had not yet created our federal system and defined the role of the states within the system. Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language defines the noun ‘state’ to mean ‘[a] republick; a government not monarchial,’ without addressing the possibility that states assembled together might form a larger nation.[iii] Simply citing Johnson’s definition might not properly answer a question about the meaning of the term ‘state’ in the Constitution.”[iv]
I provided the example from "Maggs, Guide" since my original inquiry to LOC specified a legal definition for "state"/"State" in 1776. However, the example above is not intended to be my complete presentation on this subject. Personally I would insist on retaining the same intent of meaning for "state" just as the "Founding Fathers" had within the second Organic Law: The Articles of Confederation - mainly because that "Law" was never repealed and therefore it was not Lawfully possible to have the Constitution of September 17, 1787 (as the Fourth Organic Law) "replace" the Third Organic Law. In other words the meaning of the term "state" (IMO) must remain the same in the "Fourth".
[i] See, e.g., James L. Weis, Comment, Jurisprudence by Webster’s: The Role of the Dictionary in Legal Thought, 39 MERCER L. REV. 961, 963 (1988) (“Judges should admit that dictionaries provide possible meanings, not dispositive resolutions.”).
[ii] State, MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1151 (9th ed. 1985).
[iii] JOHNSON, supra note 7 (entry for “state”).
[iv] 368 THE GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 82:358
[v] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from the Social Science Research Network:
February 25, 2018 - More Re: "the Articles of Confederation" - "What Isn't There and Why It Is Important" - By Anna Von Reitz -
"...We have all been fed this 'explanation' that the Constitutions superseded the Articles of Confederation, but this is not so and is merely a convenient assumption, because again--- there is no action ending or repealing The Articles of Confederation recorded anywhere.
If they weren't repealed, they were obviously not superseded.
Instead, the 'perpetual Union of States' these Articles of Confederation created survived the adoption of the constitutions just fine, and were in fact included as part of the process as parties to The Constitution for the united States of America.
'States of America' was and is the doing-business-as-name of the Union of States created by The Articles of Confederation. You can now see that they were the parties holding the National level Constitution in the federal government. (Read my monograph, America: Some Assembly Required to see how the actual structure worked.)
Some break-away members of this Confederation attempted to dissolve the 'perpetual Union' established by The Articles of Confederation by forming The Confederate States of America, but they lacked the unanimous support required to do so. ..."
And, as I have posted before, you can find the Articles of Confederation listed as part of the set of Organic Laws published in the front of Volume one of the "United States Code" (2006 ed).
This research inspired me to dig deeper into the allegations that there are more than one "Constitution" and that they are known by different titles, among them being: "The Constitution for The United States of America" and "THE CONSTITUTION of the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". This led me to forming the following report:
In “THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION” a general background regarding how the Constitution of September 17th, 1787 is presented under the: “HISTORICAL NOTE ON FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION”
This apparently authoritative account gave no indication that the Lawful Dejure Congress had passed a resolution to dissolve the Articles of Confederation. The “Research Service” only indicated that the secret constitutional convention had exceeded their Lawful mandate for revising the Articles and that they also intended that the Articles be “supplanted”.
“New York and several other States hesitated on the ground that, without the consent of the Continental Congress, the work of the con-vention would be extra-legal; that Congress alone could propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. ,,, After some hesitancy Congress approved the suggestion for a convention at Philadelphia ‘for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union.’’ (underlined emphasis added)
“The convention had been called to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, it reported to the Continental Congress a new Constitution. Fur- thermore, while the Articles specified that no amendments should be effective until approved by the legislatures of all the States, the Philadelphia Convention suggested that the new Constitution should supplant the Articles of Confederation when ratified by conventions in nine States. For these reasons, it was feared that the new Constitution might arouse opposition in Congress.”
This history concluded with: “Owing to various delays, Congress was late in assembling, and it was not until April 30, 1789, that George Washington was inaugurated as the first President of the United States.”
The above report deserves additional comments that I may make at my next opportunity.
August 1, 2018 - Continuing Re: the Secret Constitutional Convention -
"Conspiracy in Philadelphia - A Successful 200-Year Deception" -
"In this book, I argue that the United States Constitution is the product of eighteenth-century unitarianism, though not Unitarianism, which was a nineteenth-century movement. The supposed Founding Fathers (Framers) of repute were trinitarians in much the same way that Sir Isaac Newton had been: members of publicly confessing churches, but not personally believing the confession. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were self-conscious about their rejection of trinitarianism, as their later correspondence reveals. George Washington was less identifiably unitarian, but he refused as an adult to take the Lord’s Supper, and he avoided the use of the word 'Christ' as systematically as Abraham Lincoln did, four score and seven years later. Benjamin Franklin’s religion was a religion of practical gentility, devoid of the disturbing concept of hell. Madison, to the extent that he wrote about religion, was self-conscious in his attempt to reduce the impact of confessions of faith and theology on politics, which he regarded as religiously neutral.
In response, critics of my thesis argue along these lines: 'If what you say is true, then good Christian men who attended the Constitutional Convention were deceived by the men who called together the Convention.' This is my conclusion. But this admission does not satisfy the critics. 'You are saying that there was a hard-core group of conspirators who actively deceived the other attendees.' This is exactly what I am saying. 'But how could you say this terrible thing about our Founding Fathers?' On this basis:
The Convention was assembled under false pretenses.
All attendees took a vow of lifetime silence.
They held their meetings on the second floor: no eavesdroppers The press was barred from attending.
The legislatures’ instructions were deliberately violated."
 A key to understanding how these two streams (of "self-government" and a lawful external government) can essentially coexist is to learn what the term "United States" refers to in the Organic Laws.
 Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/most-expensive-regulation-in-history/#mmKsTeMkdkbWMbpr.99
See Part III.
From the following search:
8] The section begins on page XIII, and the issue regarding the Articles of Confederation begins on page XIV at the 2nd paragraph and it concludes on page XIX.
 “PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS”
 page XVI 1st paragraph.
 page XVIII, 2nd paragraph.
 page XIX.
 "Any person who has looked into the history of education in America soon learns—from authors John Taylor Gatto and Charlotte Iserbyt, for example—that the system has been intentionally rigged and degraded, because who in power wants millions of independent, literate, logical minds out there questioning and analyzing what elite power is really doing?":
(See: eighth paragraph.)
American law, constitution, liberty, Magna Carta, rule of law, Organic Laws, self-government, taxation, united states, self government, 14th Amendment citizen, Form 1040, 13th amendment, involuntary servitude, voluntary servitude, contract law, california code, retail tax, sales tax, direct taxes, Crash Course in the Constitution, articles of confederation, US citizen
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!Print this page
Email this page