quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

I think I may have cracked it. The source code, the Rosetta Stone, the explanation for the apparently insane pronouncements of conspiracy theorists, anti-government conspirators, jurisdictional querents and tax protestors – and more than that, the one thing that unites them and their causes.

Well its very hard for americans much less a brit to grasp the way sovereignty works in America.

To comprehend that from which these things grow, we must travel back in time to colonial America and 13 colonies that being denied redress of their grievances, declared war on Great Britain, and agreed Articles by which they became the United States Of America – a Confederacy.

A business and trust agreement under the bankruptcy, creating a more perfect union such that they are able to collect the debts from the states that the articles of confederation did not address to that effect.

What’s important here is that the Articles appear to demonstrate that each state (former colony) ("corporations" under the king) had sovereignty as a republic within the Confederacy – and appear to make no provision whatever for a democratic process by which the popular sovereignty of its people should determine its laws or government. (governments laws?) 

In other words, the sovereignty of the people of each state under the Articles is individual, not collective.

Its both.  It is individual but collective when in assembly.

These Articles persisted until after the end of the war with Great Britain. Interestingly perhaps, I found nothing to suggest in the Treaties signed, that Great Britain ceded sovereignty over the USA specifically,

Yes the king ceded political "jurisdiction" in the treaty of paris as I pointed out in that thread, however I was not able to find anywhere that the king ceded all lands or his interest in commerce, and specified debt obligations of th eus to the king.


though it would be difficult to argue anything to the contrary as has here been suggested, given the wording and the lack of de facto sovereignty even if de jure sovereignty persisted.

When the king gave up jurisdiction over his corporations that was the point where they people now became sovereign.

These Articles persisted in fact for some years after the end of the war. Because of the Confederate structure however, they proved impractical.

Not exactly there was no way to collect debt from the "other" corporations because they all (just like the king) claimed sovereign immunity.

Conventions were organised to resolve the problems inherent – a reasonable course of action. But then comes the next important part. The attendees of the Convention, delegates from the Confederated states, met in secret and without authority drafted what became the US Constitution, making the USA a Federation, not a Confederation.

Well sorta, they created what would become the organic and only "lawful" constitution 1791 circa, "for" the "u"nited States of America, which gauranteed the republican (not the political party), that is the republican form of government to all/any states who enjoined in said union.  Therefore it was at that point still a "confederation".

“So what?” You might think. But it is the “what” that appears to be the gripe propelling the current conflation of discontents. For by way of this change from the Articles to the Constitution, sovereignty became vested in the people as a collective rather than in each individual person, and further, despite the guarantee of republican government for each state, this change translated to that government of each state too.

That is not true.  The sovereignty remained in the people and it did not create a democracy it created a dual government by creating a central government that had not yet taken the form of a democracy.

This created a federal democracy. “So what?” You might think again. Democracy is a good thing and in any case the Constitution guards the rights of the minority. But to understand the source of the discontent, one must look not to one’s own ideas but to those of the discontented, founded on the apparent subterfuge by which the Constitution was produced and enacted and the ulterior motives of the plotters therein.

The constitution does not gaurd anything.  It was never intended to gaurd anything.  Prove is go to court for a traffic ticket and see how far you get with the constitution now days.

Unless you know and have the capabilities of a lawyer you do not have access to that constitution except maybe in a capital offence.

All the constitution did is limit the governments authority (on paper) by enumeration over those who would become a citizen to said government.

If you try to claim constitution in a traffic case they will hold you in contempt of court.

All the constitution does is give you a breach of trust/contract charging ability in court provided you did not enter into a contract circumventing and waiving those rights regardless if you knew it or not.

The federal democracy had not yet been created.

“What ulterior motives?” You might ask. To understand this part, one has to examine why the Articles proved unworkable – namely the utter lack of power of the central government to compel any of the Confederated states to do anything that they had committed to do, and its similar utter lack of power to deal, as the united front of the USA with the world – each state simply did as it would with one another and foreign powers.

Ok I addressed that, agreed.

So then, the Constitution, created in secret, set up a central government to which each state was subordinated, giving total power to that central government to do as it would and require by compulsion the states to obey, and to require of the states to exercise the same compulsion to obey the central government on their people. But the Constitution went further than this even – reserving to the central government several powers which allowed it to enforce by this mechanism its own laws, taxes and levies and undertake obligations, debts and liabilities to which the states were then obligated, indebted and liable.

well sorta.  There are very specific rules that had to be followed and very specific taxes that they were allowed to collect and those taxes were always even to this day voluntary.  In the constitution for the uS, and lets not forget the Bill of Rights which runs with it, they were running along up to the 13th amendment where they made an amendment to insure no nobility could hold an office and of course that was when the war of 1812 broke out and the brits burned down the white house and th 13th majically was replaced with no slavery.  Now over the upcoming years they created the democracy.  It did however enable them to collect on debts agreed to by the states and our unending war debt etc.

In short, whatever it was that the American War Of Independence was about, the Constitution put an end to it, replacing British ruling elites with American ruling elites, allowing and enabling the same methods of oppression and exploitation of the people by the new rulers, with the illusion for the people that by way of the new democratic process they might retain control as a sovereign collective.

Well the american ruling elites were after all british.

This on its face would seem to explain the otherwise odd claims about personal sovereignty, “contracts” to which certain people claim they are not party, the ability to escape taxation upon challenge and the allegedly unlawful laws and jurisdictions passed under de facto “sovereignty” by the central government which are claimed to bind no one who does not wish to be bound – because the Constitution itself is an invalid document, deemed so by virtue of its origins and its nature and effects as compared to those of the Articles.

Thats not really correct though there is thinking along those lines.  My sources have shown that the people when ratifying the state constitutions as a member state withing the union do in fact ratify also the constitution regardless if it is private law, and all the states of the union enter into this contract on par with the original 13 under the AOC and BOR and the constitution.  So it becomes ratified in that manner.

Now upon a state entering the union the people are purely soveriegn who created a sovereign (to OTHER states, state) and as "consenting" to be citizens cede the 17 enumerated powers to the government under the ORIGINAL INTENT (not the shit mess it is today.

But also arising from this prima facie interpretation is the explanation for the general anti-government feeling, “patriot” movements – maybe even the Tea Party movement, the notion of the fraudulent nature of the money system, the idea of the USA as a commercial corporation and the basis for suspecting the central government of various conspiracies against the people, each one designed to manipulate them to whatever cause the ruling elite decide shall be of profit or to keep attention focussed elsewhere than from on what the ruling elite is up to.

Damn you threw everrything including the kitchen sink in the end here.  You didnt even get to the real creation of the democracy.

Remember lincoln, well he is dead because he made greenbacks because the banks were charging to much.  There are no provisions in the constitution for fiat or paper money, that is money of no specie or intrinsic value.  The test being gold or silver or anything of value with limited amount.

Now with lincoln they put the next nail in the coffin and create the 14th amendment.  There is the beginning of the democracy.  The bonds came due for the loans from the king in 1776ish and and we owed twice as much as we did initially.  Well the creditors, the banking elite, the king, the east india corporation said pay up and they couldnt.  So what the federal government did was to go land hunting and usurped the lands of the south for collateral for the yet unpaid debt so they could procure new money from the credotors etc.

So this shit about war between the states is just that, shit.  It was the bankrupt federal government taking the south by conquest to finance the round of debt.

We now have the constitution OF the United States in the creation of the corporate not organic constitution and from then on there was no longer an real requirement to ratify anything as the seats in government are now vacent replace by corporate officers and remains the same to this day.

So after that all sorts of garbage colorful law was created and people contracted on and were unwittingly sucked in their jurisdiction where little do they know that if they take advantage of this health care they may as well kiss their asses goodbye in as much as "rights" go because they just contracted for privileges.


So, there you have it. No more trying to guess what on Earth its all about – you now know, and we can now instead discuss the merits of the case at its root, rather than its symptomatic hints, clues and ramblings, from which nothing of such substance may be otherwise divined.

So, “The People” –v- “The United States Of America” ?

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Lady E, it makes no difference what you say, Real and his sock puppet will disagree with you. You are therefore on a fool's errand in trying to reason with them.

You would have a much easier time convincing the tower of london to walk across the Thames.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

very disappointed that Real One hasnt dropped by to comment.........

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Lady E, it makes no difference what you say, Real and his sock puppet will disagree with you. You are therefore on a fool's errand in trying to reason with them.

You would have a much easier time convincing the tower of london to walk across the Thames.

whats the matter with you man?  I am begining to think you are stuck on stupid.   If you pay attention to what I posted in response to LE and actually read it then you will notice that I partially agreed all the way through.  So whats your problem?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Lady E, it makes no difference what you say, Real and his sock puppet will disagree with you. You are therefore on a fool's errand in trying to reason with them.

You would have a much easier time convincing the tower of london to walk across the Thames.

whats the matter with you man?  I am begining to think you are stuck on stupid.   If you pay attention to what I posted in response to LE and actually read it then you will notice that I partially agreed all the way through.  So whats your problem?

It is simple, you have this unique and irritating habit of telling people they are stupid among other things when they say anything contrary to your beliefs. There is no intelligent debate, just attacks.

You may have agreed (something I have never seen before) then you turn around and criticize the op for her topic wording.

Your problem is that you are so anti-government that it is no longer funny.