opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 1, 2012 12:53:47 GMT -5
- A Simplified Explanation of
"The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government" I have been asked for a sentence, or two, to describe "The Plan For the Restoration of Constitutional Government". Well, I could not provide such a short description due to the complexity of the Plan, itself. However, in numerous phone conversations, I have tried to provide an explanation of the Plan, and I do believe that I have found a descriptive means of demonstrating just how it would work. Suppose you had a map of the United States and it was all black. Black represents areas that are under the control of repressive government (yes, this also includes all state governments that have submitted to receiving federal funds -- all of them). Now, suppose a very small white dot appears on the map. Within a few days, a few more white dots appear. These white areas (even though very, very small, at first) represent areas that have returned to Constitutional government, regardless of the means. As time goes on, these small white dots become more frequent, and, they begin to become larger. After a short period of time, some of the dots, now growing into definable shape, stretch out and merge with another white area. As time goes on, these areas become even larger, merging with other areas, and, soon, encompassing counties within their respective state. Growing and merging, the will soon encompass most of the state, perhaps wrapping around large population areas (cites and metropolitan areas). As they continue to grow, they will cross state lines and begin absorbing the high population areas, until the map has been reversed, and the black areas are reduced to dots, and then disappear completely. So, if I have been successful in reducing the Plan to a simple and easily conveyed explanation, perhaps you would like to go to The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government - Abbreviated Version www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=365 read, and understand just how this can happen. When you read the Plan, you will see that it is based upon our own history. It is an emulation of the same course taken by our own Founders in securing the colonies that were soon to become the United States of America. A full version of the Plan (not abbreviated) can be emailed in DOC format, on request.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 2, 2012 10:57:04 GMT -5
The "plan" is based on an initial false premise. That an armed "revolution" is needed, possible or advisable. There are also numerous historical inaccuracies built into the premise.
This statement really encompasses the total of the misunderstanding: "The desire to change government back to its Constitutional limitations would best be served if no blood were shed. The impracticality of achieving that end, along with the knowledge that blood has already been shed, moves us to the second position"
The ONLY way to retain (regain if you will) a Constitutional America is via the "political process".
Very simply put, IF there is not the political will of the American People to retain/regain a Constitutional America, there is NO way to force the issue. If there are indeed "shots fired" in the form of a "revolution", the resulting country will NOT be a Constitutional America, but something vastly different, likely a communist/socialist/fascist dictatorship. (Ask yourself this question, would the People of America accept and ratify the current Constitution, if given the opportunity?)
The mistaken, but commonly repeated notion that the participation rate of the Colonials was very small (some say 3%) really gives their condition (and any discussion of a neo-revolution) false beginnings.
The fact of the matter, the population of the Colonies at that time were about 3 million, the population of Boston was about 15,000. In May of 1774, the British conducted a powder raid, and this resulted in between 40,000 and 60,000 men, under arms, marching to Boston to help protect that city. This is one area, one event. On April 19th, 1775, as a result of Lexington and Concord, in less than 24 hours, the Colonials were able to muster about 14,000 men under arms.
Even the British complained, over and over, that the 'rebellion' had widespread support from the Colonials, and Tory support for the British was much more sparse than they initially anticipated.
Considering that We the People are the owners of this country, and have ALL the tools and structures available to us to run this country, and fix the problems we have, via the political processes, we enjoy what our Founders never had.
As one ponders the notion of "armed revolt" against the federal/state/local governments, look at the large numbers and broad appeal such an effort would require. If numbers were small, or concentrated in a few states, they would be easily isolated and neutralized. In the effort to amass the numbers of people who are willing to "take up arms", one would very quickly surpass the numbers which are needed to fix the country via the political process. And further, the political process allows for progressive increase of participation, and for regional, or even individual state level participation while still being effective and safe.
It is the insistence of people to only view the federal level of government for the resolutions, and the fixation on that level which leads people to despair. There are many, many very positive things happening today, which are turning the country around. These are political processes in action, by a very small number of people.
It is fantasy to think that it is going to be possible to amass enough Patriots who are willing to give up their jobs, their families, and perhaps their lives, to engage in armed revolt, but yet it is not possible to amass a smaller number of Patriots who are willing to engage in the proven successful political processes, with nearly no risk to their jobs, family or lives.
The Founders had two choices, fight or submit. Their sacrifice in blood provided us a third choice, that of ownership and control over our government.
If we can not get enough people to act like owners, there is no way we are going to get enough to "act" like warriors. If we can get enough to take up their roles as owners, then we will never need to take up our arms.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 2, 2012 12:01:12 GMT -5
Interesting that you assume a "false premise" that armed revolution is needed. Let me suggest that history has proven that change by lection is a false premise where change by revolution has, historically, been a means of change. So, which premise is false? Now, before you suggest other revolutions, you may want to consider that there has, to date, only been one revolutionary war where there was a government in place. It is that foundation that the Plan is modeled upon. Let me note that you have suggested historical inaccuracies, however, you, inaccurately, fail to identify these "inaccuracies". You quote from the article, "The desire to change government back to its Constitutional limitations would best be served if no blood were shed. The impracticality of achieving that end, along with the knowledge that blood has already been shed, moves us to the second position", and suggest that "encompasses, the total of the misunderstanding", again, is without explanation -- simply a broad brush. I have always marveled at this tactic of debate. Broadly proclaim -- and pray that none question. Perhaps you dispute that blood has been shed. If so, you have failed to follow events over the past twenty, plus, years. Surely, you cannot suggest that political process is salvation, for, if you do, I simply ask, over the past twenty years, name any change for the better; Provide any evidence that anything that has been accomplished was any more than a temporary reduction in the progression of despotism. Your statement, " If there are indeed "shots fired" in the form of a "revolution", the resulting country will NOT be a Constitutional America, but something vastly different, likely a communist/socialist/fascist dictatorship", is indicative of the fact that you did not read the entire Plan, since what you imply is not what the article presents. However, absent taking the time to read it (and that is just the abbreviated version), it is a logical assumption -- especially for those who have a plan that they have not been able to articulate. A friend believes in the political process. He has for many years. I have asked him to set a timeline and benchmarks -- intervals and anticipated results -- so that he can evaluate any progress in the viability of change by political process. He has not provided same. Can you have a plan of action that has no means of evaluation of the potential for success? That would come under the heading of "the illusive phantom of Hope" that Patrick Henry spoke of. Now, you bring in a stranger. Did I suggest, in the article, that there was a 3%? John Adams came up with some numbers that don't stand the test of historical record, yet they are continually alluded to by many. To understand the Lexington and Concord was not the beginning, rather, was simply the first open combat, you may want to read "The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence" www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=180. It makes reference to the Powder March, with some estimates being as high as 100,000. So, the introduction of this into your response is nothing more than an effort to suggest that I said something that I have never said. Again, one of those interesting tactics. Going a bit further, with regard to colonial participation, nearly every community had replaced royal government with Committees of Safety (though often called something else), which served as the government through most of the period of the war. These Committees established courts, enrolled militia, provide arms, food, clothing,., etc. There is little doubt, historically, of the degree of their participation and support for the colonial cause. Minimally, that accepted the "new' government, though participation was probably much higher. This would suggest that easily over 2 million supported the colonial cause. How they did it is the foundation of the Plan. It was done one community at a time, as the Plan proposes. The events, dates and heroes concept of history is a simplification that began around 1820-30. Very little had been written about the War and events leading to it, as it was common knowledge. As the Founders began to die, some realized that history had to be preserved and taught to the youth. For youth, however, events, dates an d heroes is the most productive means of instilling the rudiments of history, however it leaves the details and principles out of the equation. It is from understanding all that happened back then that lead to the writing of the Plan. So, it is there for you to ponder. When you have finally decided that the political process has been corrupted to the point that we have no influence over who is elected, or what they do after they are elected, perhaps you will return to the method that has a proven record of success. In the meantime, perhaps you can come up with the timeline and benchmarks.
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Jul 2, 2012 12:14:37 GMT -5
Perhaps you have not read much of his writings. There is a need to be prepared to conduct conflict at every juncture of our interaction with any governmnet. You can not go to any member of any Governmnet without the resolve to win by agreement if possible or by Conflict if needed. When I go to the entrance of the federal/State/County/Municipal building I am stepping off my land and onto theirs. In that building they are in charge. They have the keys, they make the rules. If I keep that in my front mind I will do so only when I can guarantee my safe return. In this line you must treat every meeting, appearance, and use of their facilities as a combat mission. It must be planned down to the smallest detail. If you can't guarantee success, don't engage. The goal of the Government is to win at all costs. Since they control the Physical location, physical security, and the courts of response they get home field advantage. If they lose the agents who lost will be punished. Some by loss of jobs, others by loss of revenue, and still others may even lose their lives. This makes them capable of anything. Can we expect any less? Are we willing to do any less?
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 2, 2012 13:52:21 GMT -5
The difference in history of the Founding of this country, and where we sit today is vast.
What they had back then was arbitrary edicts, contrary to their Colonial Charters/Constitutions.....from the "owner" of their country. They were forced to two choices. Either submit to the will of the King/Parliament, or fight to retain the Liberties and Freedoms they had enjoyed via their Charters.
What we have today is the abdication of power and authority by the people, deferring to their representatives in government, to make the decisions and operate this country.
The solution to this problem is to simple enact the tools we have available to us.
You desire "time tables". Sorry, you surely understand those are not possible. However, I could give legions of positive steps and examples of the Constitutional tools being used effectively and in positive manners.
Since the Tenth Amendment Center specialized in this, they have many recorded there, as does the County Sheriff's Project. But these are really a small fraction of the positives.
If one solely looks at federal elections and actions as a measure of success, of course things will look very bleak. But the movement toward Liberty on the State and County fronts is tremendous. Do I really need to duplicate their work here?
When do we "win"? Never. The struggle to retain Liberty and a Constitutional Republic is a never ending struggle. Each generation has the charge to preserve what has been passed on to them, to pass it on to the future generations.
The Plan's reliance upon the use of violence and force to "destroy" then "rebuild" a Constitutional Republic is to step over the easy for the difficult.
If indeed, there is enough support for the operations in the plan, there is more than enough support for implementation of the tools already available to us. Further, to embark on the tact of force/violence, by the "citizens" would only serve to gather political support for the forces of tyranny.
Those who break the law, need to be held accountable to the law. This sword will cut both ways. If you assert (and I would be hard pressed to argue against you) that agents of the government have acted outside the law, the resolution is provided by the Constitutional authority we already have. If we do not have the political will, on the part of the people, to adhere to these principles, how in the world do you envision there will be the political will to restore it once destroyed?
There has been a tremendous awakening within this country over the last 4-6 years. The People of this country are now reclaiming their rightful positions of "owners".
I understand the frustration many have over the seemingly slow progress of restoring/retaining our Constitutional Republic via Constitutional means, but any other means to try to achieve this IS a revolution, and would be rightfully opposed by both government and many people in this country. People who can agree that the country is long left the Constitutional foundation of our forefathers, can have a very legitimate disagreement of the use of force to "restore" it.
America is unique in that it was birthed by a revolution, where the victors gave their spoils away. I can not name any other like it.
I can not name any "revolution" which was "voted" into existence.
However, considering that the People of this country already own this country. Since the People of this country already posses all the tools and power to preserve/restore its Constitutional principles, then there is no need for a "revolution", what is needed is assertion of ownership responsibilities on the part of the owners.
If the People of this country will not act as owners, they will not act as warriors. Applying ownership is much easier and effective than applying force.
John Adams speaks of when the "American Revolution" was won. He says, rightly, it was won long before the first shots of the war were fired, as it was won in the hearts and minds of the American People.
That is the battle ground we are on today, the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen, our friends, family and neighbors. If we can not get them to desire a Constitutional America, we surely can not force it upon them.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 2, 2012 14:07:30 GMT -5
Busboy, I have no intention of going further into this rabbit hole, except for a very simple explanation.
The Crown and Parliament did not abide by the English Constitution (yes, there really was one though it was a compilation rather than a single document) and, as you state, refused to abide by the Charters.
So, what is the difference between then and now?
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 2, 2012 14:16:08 GMT -5
I have been chewing on "the plan".
Where is the reference to the Constitutional government in place? Where is the reference to the laws in place?
There are many elected Sheriffs in this country, are they "rebels" for purposes of this plan? Do they hold any recognized authority, or do they have to swear an oath to "the plan", is not their oath to the Constitution appropriate enough?
This all goes to the underpinnings of what "the plan" is trying to accomplish. Again, I can't help but read this as an attempt to destroy what is already in place, in an attempt to try to replace it with the exact same thing.
Most of the elements which "the plan" purports to want to achieve, already exist.
So why is it going to be more effective in maintaining a Constitutional Republic after engaging in a second revolutionary war, rather than simply applying the one we already have?
And this revolution which is being outlined in "the plan", is it understood it is a revolution against our fellow countrymen, our friends, families and neighbors? Because, that is who the "government" is. How will they react to these aggressive actions?
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 2, 2012 14:25:42 GMT -5
Busboy, I have no intention of going further into this rabbit hole, except for a very simple explanation. The Crown and Parliament did not abide by the English Constitution (yes, there really was one though it was a compilation rather than a single document) and, as you state, refused to abide by the Charters. So, what is the difference between then and now? The difference is very simply, your friends, family and neighbors are the ones who have instituted our current Constitution (and it is not just the federal Constitution, but the individual state Constitutions), and thus "We the People" as owners already have ALL the tools and authority to operate our country as a Constitutional Republic. Unlike the Founding generation, they had no authority to do so, they only had "permission" from the owner, the King, to operate a certain way. The American Revolution was initially viewed by many as a "civil war" between citizens of the Crown. Only later, with the declaration of Independence, did it become a "revolution". What 'the plan' advocates is another civil war, as what we have today is a country owned and operated by "We the People". The plan purports to seek to destroy this, then restore it. The logical question has to be asked, why not simply restore it? Again, if the hearts and minds of the American People are not for Freedom and Liberty, they will not have it with any level of force. If the hearts and minds of the American People are FOR Freedom and Liberty, they can not be denied it. Moving the battle field from the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen, to the physical confrontations in "the plan" are a sure recipe for disaster, all the while a relative "cake walk" is before us. If the People of this country do not like the course she is on, they can change it, and are in fact doing just that. Positive stories are aplenty. Examples of the Constitutional tools effectively at work are in nearly every state.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 2, 2012 14:56:16 GMT -5
It was not our friends, family, et al. who instituted the Constitution. In Fact many of the laws that are in effect were enacted long before anyone alive today was able to participate in enact8ng them. Noe a b9ot different than the centuries from Magna Carta to 1776, as the English Constitution evolved and the charters were written. It was Englishmen against Englishmen, ans it would be American against American, today.
The circumstances today are very little different than then. The only difference is the legislators then are now dead while the legislators now are still alive. Parliament usurped authority it did not have. Congress has usurped authority it did not have. The King, from time to time, exceeded his authority (Royal prerogative) as the president exceeds his authority (Executive privilege). The Parliament didn't hold the King in check until 1644 (English Revolution), and the Congress doesn't hols the president in check.
As far as laws, well, if you would read the entire article, you would see that they are addressed in progression, as the Plan is carried out.
So, if you do want to continue the discussion, it might be worth you understanding what we are discussing, both historically and what the Plan says. However, there is much detail omitted from the Abbreviated Version that is included in the full version (available by email). So, if we are to continue, let's do so with an understanding of just what we are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 2, 2012 14:59:47 GMT -5
Learning a lot, excellent background and discussion.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 2, 2012 16:08:43 GMT -5
It was not our friends, family, et al. who instituted the Constitution. Sorry, I was a bit metaphoric. My point really is that the country is owned by the People of this country. It is they who are charged with preserving and passing on the Constitutional Republic. Each generation has the power/authority to amend the Constitution, or accept it as it is. Each generation is charged with giving their consent to be governed, as referenced in the Declaration of Independence. Also pointed out in the Declaration, people are prone to endure abuses as long as they can be endured. But, unless each generation is willing to accept the Constitution (including the various state's constitutions) as the foundation of the governing system of this country, we are doomed to devolve into civil/revolutionary war with each generation...like so many nations do. It was Englishmen against Englishmen, ans it would be American against American, today. This is not an accurate comparison. The battle in England, and in pre-Revolutionary War America was not "Englishmen against Englishmen", it was English royalty against English subjects. There is no direct comparison available in America today. The owners of the country are the People. Any revolution engaged in, in America today, is an assault against the people. Now there is NO DOUBT (and no argument from me) that the federal government has (and is still) usurped powers not granted to it. However, the resolution to this situation is for the owners of the country to reclaim their power and authority, from the usurpers. Just as you would take your car away from someone who has borrowed it, but was abusing it. The Parliament didn't hold the King in check until 1644 (English Revolution), and the Congress doesn't hols the president in check. Parliament (a majority, but far from all) were in agreement with the King. The full of the English government was the King and Parliament, with the King being the owner of the country. While the owners of this country have charged the Congress to hold the President in check, the ultimate responsibility lays with the owners, the People. If they (the People) are unwilling, or lacking the knowledge of how, to hold both Congress and President (and Supreme Court) responsible for usurped powers, can we force the People to do so? What's more, we have further checks build into our system of government, in that the states can check an out of control federal government. This avenue has far from been fully explored in the last 100 years. There has been tremendous success and progress in this area over the last 6 or so years, with successes ranging back decades. As far as laws, well, if you would read the entire article, you would see that they are addressed in progression, as the Plan is carried out. Understood about the abbreviated plan, to whom do I direct a request for the "full plan"? However, there is ample information on the web site linked in the OP to illustrate the plan is to destroy to restore. I just can not grasp why we would destroy what we have, to try to restore what we have. Again, if the hearts and minds of the People of this country were such that they would demand a Constitutional government, then a revolution is not needed. If they don't want a Constitutional government, it can not be forced upon them. Perhaps it is just to simple for me to grasp.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 2, 2012 16:27:09 GMT -5
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 2, 2012 17:16:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Jul 2, 2012 20:09:47 GMT -5
1776 was the first great secession and 1861 was the second. I for one am damn well ready for the Secession III. For any who do not know me do not get on a Disgruntled Southron tirade. I am a proud native son of the Live Free or Die state and always will be. We had a saying there that just because a cat crawls in the oven and has kittens that don't give you the right to call them biscuits. So I will never claim to be a true southron nor should my children nor my grandchildren.
But I have lived all over this once great nation and my wife and I chose NC to be our last stand and so here we are and here we will make our stand for Liberty. As stated in the Declaration the South had endured one too many transgressions from an over reaching centralized federal government influenced by economic powers of the day to remain any longer in a union they entered into of their own free will and therefore had every right to resolve. They made every attempt to resolve the issues at hand but to no avail.To me this is the real answer. Nullification and secession. We are free to work to convince our fellow sovereign citizens to dissolve our ties with Mordor on the Potomac and go our own way and form new compacts with other free and independent sovereign states. There is nothing to be saved in DC. They have broken the oath they took and never meant to uphold. It is not even worth the effort to bring them to trial, convict them and carry out the sentence treason should carry. Forget them unless they think that Lincoln set a precedence for preserving the Union. Just as if Great Britain had won the initial War for Independence (Secession I) an issue of Liberty and Freedom that is suppressed by force and settled in blood will never be settled and will rise again.
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Jul 2, 2012 22:03:23 GMT -5
I would suggest that each of us get some of the documents we speak of and re-read them. There are many gaps in the American education system. It allows what happened to us to be skipped between years and leaves us without the basis of our beliefs. 1. The end of hostilities in 1776 was accomplished when the young Officer brought Cornwallis' sword to Washington. By the accepted (then and now) terms of the Law of Nations at that instance the war was over, and the land belonged to the winner. However the colonies were being directed by a group of men who did not bear the truth in their hearts as they did in their WALLETS. 2. In 1783 three men went to Versailles to sign a series of treaties with the Crown. These men were Benjamin Franklin ESQ (soon to become the first Post Master General), John Jay ESQ (soon to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), and John Adams ESQ (soon to become the second President of the United States). If you notice by their "TITLES" these three were members of the British Archival Registry and as such had sworn blood oaths to support and defend the Crown of England. Thus when they signed the treaty of Versailles they were committing fraud and were by their signatures making the document unenforceable due to their Fiduciary duty to the King that those titles carried. They also allowed the King in describing himself to be accepted as "the prince elector of the united states" over 6 years before their was a united states. What did they, and the King, know? 3. In March 1860 when the Congress adjourned "Sein Die" the republic died. This was caused by the 10 southern States seceding and leaving the Congress no quorum. This allowed Lincoln (also an ESQ) to declare a martial law that is still in force. There was never a surrender of the Confederacy only a surrender of the Military. Lincoln never raised the martial law. 4. In 1871 the Lincoln created, and seated Congress passed the "DC Organic Act" that formed the Governmnet that we have today. That Corporation is registered in Delaware. This makes any election we vote in an illegal election. The only way to reset the Republic is by the power and the duties of the Declaration of Independence. While it does not have to be by force of arms, it must be complete. The Elected felons must all step down. The original 13th Amendment must be re-ratified and all of those with Foreign titles must depart this nations shores, or become registered Agents of their home nations, regardless where they were born. The same must be done in the State houses all across this great land.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 2, 2012 22:47:24 GMT -5
Patriot Mythology!
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 3, 2012 5:57:25 GMT -5
According to who? I could just as easily pull sections out of your writings and claim they are nothing but "Mythology". my·thol·o·gy [ mi thólləjee ] myths collectively: myths considered as a groupIf you want challenge the statments, back it up with some countering facts, instead of trying to use a "Mythology blanket" to stop a certain perspective from being put forth. Debate is used to teach others, as well as to grow yourself.
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Jul 3, 2012 7:39:12 GMT -5
It is easier to shout mythology! than to read. Reading will also complicate other mental constructs. If you go to : avalon.law.yale.edu/. You can read many documents that they hope you think are "Patriot Mythology" however once you start reading them you will find the need to go to : www.newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htmThere you can read the actual words used by the Popes as they forced our world into conflicts to keep the gold moving toward Rome. I started my trip down the Rabbit hole after retiring from the Military at the end of Desert Storm. It was the worst decision of my life. Now instead of watching sports and listening to Rush Limbaugh and the other Patriots for hire I come here and share what I have learned to those who wish to pull Dorothy out of Oz. I will take a few today and tonight I will add the links for these "Patriot Myths"
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 3, 2012 9:37:15 GMT -5
safetalker, All that you have posed, so far, is concerning things that I have read since long before Desert Storm. I have also watched many go to prison, and some die, because they pursued such myths. I have also written about some and I have written my conclusion as to what he problem is based upon. For a start (and, try The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution - an Essay www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh04.htm BTW, Esq meant country gentleman and was not necessarily a lawyer. Of those who practiced law in this country in the Founding Era, only a very few were members of the BAR. Most who practiced were "lettered in the law". You may want to look that up. I will paste an incomplete article (just notes) regarding the alleged organic act of 1871 in my next post here. They are not a finished article as I wrote them for a radio show on the subject.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 3, 2012 9:37:59 GMT -5
Notes on US as a corporation codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/VI/176/A/3002First, let's see what kinds of corporations there were in 1828, and , how they are legally perceived, today" * * * From Webster's 1828 Dictionary: Corporation n. - A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person; a society having the capacity of transacting business as an individual. Corporations are aggregate or sole. Corporations aggregate consist of two or more persons united in a society which is preserved by succession of members, either forever, or till the corporation is dissolved by the power that formed it, by death of all its members, by surrender of its charter or franchises, or by forfeiture. Such corporations are the mayor and aldermen of cities, the head fellows of a college, the dean and chapter of a cathedral church, the stockholders of a bank or insurance company, &c. A corporation sole consists of one person only and his successors, as a king or a bishop. Corporate, a. - [L. corporatus, from corporer, to be shaped into a body, from corpus, body] United in a body or community, as a number of individuals who are empowered to transact business as an individual' formed into a body; as a corporate assembly, or society; a corporate town. Black's Law Dictionary (5th) An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation, composed in some rare instances, of a single person and his successors, being the incumbents of a particular office, but ordinarily consisting of an association of numerous individuals. Such entity subsists as a body politic under a special denomination, which is regarded in law as having a personality and existence distinct from that of its several members, and which is, by the same authority, vested with the capacity of continuous succession, irrespective of changes in its membership, either in perpetuity or for a limited term of years, and acting as a unit or single individual in matters relating to the common purpose of the association, within the scope of the powers and authorities conferred upon such bodies by law. * * * Wow, municipal corporations! And, they have defined the geographic boundaries, established a governor (the same approach mandated by the Northwest Ordinance (1784-1789)) for territories. Article I, Section 8, clause 17 provides that Congress shall have the Power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." Until that time, what was known as "Federal City" and was administered by the Congress, was set up as a municipal corporation so that Congress could leave the daily administration of a government to others to deal with. They named the newly incorporated municipality "District of Columbia" Federal City had grown, rapidly, during the civil war. Maintaining roads, water and sewerage system, etc, had become burdensome on those in Congress who had to deal with those functions. The only way that they could divest themselves of the daily responsibility was to set up that corporation. The type of corporation that we are familiar with, today (private corporations -- though they do "go public" when their shares are offered on the stock exchange) are not of the nature suggested by the purveyors of this "truth". Being brief, let's just look at the "missing links" in this scenario. To support the contention that the United States is a corporation, most often , there is reference to a rather recent 'definition' of the United States, to wit: * * * TITLE 28 [Judiciary and Judicial Procedures ]> PART VI [Particular Proceedings]> CHAPTER 176 [Federal Debt Collection Procedures]> SUBCHAPTER A [Definitions and General Provisions]> 28 U.S.C. § 3002 [: US Code - Section 3002: Definitions (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States. * * * Now, this says that in judicial proceedings, the United States (as styled in the proceedings) can mean, among other things, a federal corporation. It does not say that the United States is a federal corporation, it refers to corporations chartered by the United States instead of under state charters. Being the one that grants the charter, the government steps in as a party to the action. Now, to make this a bit clearer, let's look at what the legal definition of the United States is: * * * Blacks Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition United States. The term has several meanings. It may be merely the name of the sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S.Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.eEd. 1252.] * * * Now, that is a start at the explanation of whether the United States is a corporation, or not. I'll add one further point. The United States acts in its corporate capacity (municipal) by its very existence. Likewise, each state has a corporate capacity. Neither the federal nor the state 'applies' for a corporation, for their charter, the document that brings them into existence, is their respective constitutions. Absent that corporate status, there would be nothing to sue, or deal with society, especially from a legal standpoint. If it were, say, a town corporation, and you wanted to sue them, without the corporate status, you could only sue the mayor, or other individual. There would be no entity (corporation) to sue. The corporate nature of the states and the federal government creates a legal entity which can be addressed. Now, I'm sure that there are more questions raised by what I have written. Feel free to ask, no dare necessary.
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Jul 3, 2012 10:58:20 GMT -5
OPF It is your fault! I started many years ago dissecting your coverage of the Davis NC episodes. These led me to the documents and later to do my own studies. If I know that there is a slant on the way info is interpreted by law then I have to understand that this is why I have to take another road, but to dismiss it because it was considered "Myth" is to give up one of the pieces. I have stood in Boston in the foyer of the Jesuit enclave. I have stood in the halls of the Vatican and felt the chill of anger from the Guard Priests as I read the documents and viewed the ceiling paintings depicting Yahweh with the head of Zeus. I stood before paintings of Yashua with the body of Adonis from the Statute and the face of Claddius. Myths are only harmful if believed. I took my google earth and looked down on the Esoteric layout of our own Columbia on the shores of the Potomac. I have visited the outside of the building at 106 Downing in Old London. Where do we begin to acknowledge the truth and stop accepting their descriptions because we know and/or respect one who is implicated by the knowledge we find? Keep up your writing. You have freed many like me from our basic fears and given us the push towards our inner truths through study.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 3, 2012 13:41:17 GMT -5
Now that's the way it's done... although, I wish you two would use the "condensed" version.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 3, 2012 14:27:48 GMT -5
That was condensed. Would you like the fill version? <g>
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 3, 2012 14:51:27 GMT -5
That was condensed. Would you like the fill version? Uh, is that a threat on my life or something, cause plodding through the previous posts almost killed me. Think the doc said it was ADD, but I forgot. Hey, can't I get some Obama stash money to cover that? Look a red balloon...
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 3, 2012 15:09:30 GMT -5
Vet, Try "The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution - an Essay" www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh04.htmFor a more specific addressing of what was learned from that article, go to "Habeas Corpus - A New Understanding" www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=649and follow the link until you get to Exhibit 10. It is rather lengthy and was addressed to the Florida Supreme Court. However, it does provide insight into what the "sacred writ" was.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 3, 2012 16:10:24 GMT -5
Vet, Try "The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution - an Essay" www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh04.htmFor a more specific addressing of what was learned from that article, go to "Habeas Corpus - A New Understanding" www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=649and follow the link until you get to Exhibit 10. It is rather lengthy and was addressed to the Florida Supreme Court. However, it does provide insight into what the "sacred writ" was. Dear god man after almost reaching for the .45 a couple of times and ended up grabbing a Sam Adams Summer Ale instead... I just have to say... Yeah and so what? I have read this type of stuff for maaaaaaaaany years and although you are right on the money, I again say... So What? Not to seem disrespectful, as that is not my intent... But people don't even know what is in the frigging Constitution, much less the complete corruption of our legal system. Come on man, absolutely no one will be awakened by that argument no matter how well laid out... I'm sorry they won't, not enough anyways and surely not in the near future. Our only hope is to target SPECIFIC things that we can change to accelerate the movement, target items that will turn the tide, then we can delve into the complexities you have documented. I don't expect a restoration to be completed in my lifetime. But to have the tools to complete the job, our descendents will need the knowledge. Already they have a great guide in the Constitution, DoI and a few other critical documents, they just need the knowledge in how to PROPERLY institute them.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 3, 2012 16:33:42 GMT -5
NCC Constitution Poll StatisticsThe US Constitution is important to me. 91% agree I am proud of the US Constitution. 89% agree The US Constitution is used as a model by many countries. 67% agree To work as intended, the US constitutional system depends on active and informed citizens. 84% agree The US Constitution doesn't impact events today. 72% disagree The Constitution doesn't matter much in my daily life. 77% disagree To understand the constitution, you have to be a lawyer. 77% disagree The questions asked* % of correct responses When was the Constitution written? 19%--1787 Where was the Constitution written? 61%--Philadelphia, PA What are the first ten amendments to the Constitution called? 66%--the Bill of Rights Do you recall what the introduction of the Constitution is called? 55%--the Preamble How many branches of the Federal Government are there? 58%--three How many Senators are there in the US Congress? 48%--100 How many years are there in a Senate term? 43%--6 years How many voting members are there in the House of Representatives? 23%--435 How many years are there in a Representative's term? 45%--2 years Who nominates the justices of the Supreme Court? 70%--the president According to the Constitution, a person must meet certain requirements in order to be eligible to be elected president. Can you name any of these requirements? 69%--born in the US 51%-- 35 years of age 8%--lived in the US 14 years Can you recall any of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment? 64%--speech 41%--religion 33%--press 17%--assembly Approximately how long is the US Constitution? 29%--1-5 pages Who is Commander-in Chief of the US Armed Services? 74%--the President Can you name the group or any of the individuals who were responsible for drafting the US Constitution? 7%--the Constitutional Convention How many amendments are there to the Constitution? 19%--27 amendments What are the names of the three branches of the Federal government? 51%--legislative 50%--executive 56%--judicial True or False: The Constitution states that all men are created equal. 15%--false True or False: The US Constitution can be modified. 76%--true True or False: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. 86%--true True or False: The people can vote directly for President. 42%--false True or False: When it was first written, the Constitution outlawed slavery. 69%--false True or False: There are 10 Supreme Court Justices. 48%--false True or False: Congressional Representatives are elected by the people. 72%--true True or False: The Constitution states that Christianity is the official religion of the US. 75%--false True or False: The Constitution states that the first language of the US is English. 58%--false True or False: The text of the Constitution specifically protects a woman's right to have an abortion. 74%--false ratify.constitutioncenter.org/CitizenAction/CivicResearchResults/NCCNationalPoll/TheAnswers.shtml What's the Constitution? Don't bother asking 70% of Americans: Alarming number of U.S. citizens don't know basic facts about their own countryBy Rachel Quigley, UPDATED: 15:54 EST, 21 March 2011 Now it has emerged that 70 per cent of Americans do not know what the Constitution is, and six per cent don't even know when Independence Day falls.www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368482/How-ignorant-Americans-An-alarming-number-U-S-citizens-dont-know-basic-facts-country.html Elected Officials Flunk Constitution QuizRichard Brakean, 14, 2011 – 6:00 AM When the Republican House leadership decided to start the 112th Congress with a reading of the U.S. Constitution, the decision raised complaints in some quarters that it was little more than a political stunt. The New York Times even called it a "presumptuous and self-righteous act." That might be true, if you could be sure that elected officials actually know something about the Constitution. But it turns out that many don't. In fact, elected officials tend to know even less about key provisions of the Constitution than the general public. www.aolnews.com/2011/01/14/opinion-who-are-the-constitutional-illiterates/ The vast majority of Americans cherish the U.S. Constitution but do not know much about it.91% of Americans believe that the U.S. Constitution is important to them; and 84% believe that to work as intended, our system of government depends on active and informed citizens, BUT; More than half of Americans don't know the number of Senators; About 1 out of 3 don't know the number of branches of the Federal Government; 1 out of 6 believe that the Constitution establishes America as a Christian nation; 20% believe that only lawyers can understand the Constitution; Almost one-quarter cannot name a single right guaranteed to us by the First Amendment; and 84% believe that the U.S. Constitution is the document that states that "all men are created equal", thus confusing it with the Declaration of Independence. ratify.constitutioncenter.org/CitizenAction/CivicResearchResults/NCCNationalPoll/HighlightsofthePoll.shtml
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 3, 2012 18:42:55 GMT -5
"The vast majority of Americans cherish the U.S. Constitution but do not know much about it."
Would it make a difference if the American people know all about the Constitution and what was in it?
According to some here, the Constitution is just a fraud, perpetrated on the American people, constructed of "Orwellian" language and hidden meanings and authorities, which totally negate the ownership of this country by "We the People".
Their only solution is war, destruction, then rebuilding.
How in the world do you expect to get any level of participation from the American people if your "sales pitch" is that they have been living under a lie for over 230 years, everything they "know" is backwards, and they have only one resolution available to them and that is all our war with the most powerful nation in the world, with nearly 95% of their fellow countrymen on the side of the government?
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 3, 2012 19:04:14 GMT -5
Vet, What good would it do? = So what? If you have read any of my rather lengthy articles, especially the Fourteenth Amendment essay, you would see that I tend not to take another's words for something, rather, I either research, or test, myself, to see if it is true. For example, on testing Ashwander and Administrative Agencies, I decided that I was not a taxpayer and was not seeking any benefit from the IRS, therefore, not bound by their rules. This began in 1985 when I first did not pay or file. In 1996 or 97 the IRS came with the FBI to where I worked. When they left, they did not garnishee my wage nor did they tell my employer that he had to take withholding out of my check. Habeas Corpus I tried first back in 1995. "What if I'm Arrested? www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf50400.htm explains that story, and debunks some other myths. Since then, I have given thought to what Habeas Corpus really meant. Those thoughts have been floating around in my head for the past 17 years and I had anticipated putting them into practice if the government ever did try to charge me with a crime. Recently, the sister of someone who was charged with a crime in 1996 contacted me and asked if I could help her brother. The trial back then, convicted all but one of the defendants, however, Larry Myers had fled and was recently arrested and stood trial. I decided that it was time to test the Habeas Corpus. The test is still ongoing, as I have only gone to the District Court, the Court of Appeals (both federal) and the Florid Supreme Court. They have, by their actions, suspended Habeas Corpus (see Art I, Sec. 9. Clause 2, Constitution). There is one Court left on my list and I am preparing the test to go forward to the Court. Now, I have heard (diversions, patriot mythology) that Habeas Corpus was suspended during the Civil War and never returned. Well, that doesn't meet Constitutional Muster and my motion before the Florida Supreme Court demonstrates that the US Supreme Court heard Habeas Corpus cases until 1878, but not since. That refutes the Civil War theory, but what has happened to Habeas Corpus -- which can only be suspended by the legislative body? Backing up, just a bit, for twenty years, I have said there is no peaceful solution. I have challenged others to provide a peaceful solution and demonstrate the efficacy of it. None have taken up the offer, so I held to "no peaceful solution", which, by the way, resulted in the "Plan", as explained therein. However, if Habeas Corpus were to work as intended by the Framers, then there would be a peaceful solution, or, proof positive that the Constitution has (with evidence to support it, not speculation) been cast aside by the government. So, while I am awaiting the youth to pick up their rifles, I pass my time trying to prove, or disprove, other theories. I have posted the story behind Habeas Corpus at "Habeas Corpus - 2012" www.outpost-of-freedom.com/HC01.htm, however to really understand it, and not have me have to write it out in lesser detail, you have to go to Exhibit 10. So, back to "what for? Well, if Habeas Corpus is what I believe it is (as explained in the referenced documents in the Exhibit), then we have found a solution. If, however, the Judicial Branch has extended their authority beyond "judicial activism", and supplanted a clearly legislative authority to their branch of government, perhaps that will be the icing on the cake that pisses those young people of enough to do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 3, 2012 19:37:15 GMT -5
If you have read any of my rather lengthy articles I fully understand what you are saying and agree with a lot of it. But the average American goes absolutely blank when you start talking about this, and you have to know it. It took a lot of us many years to absorb and understand the games being played. The average American Idol generation's uptake is gonna take many, many years. We must push hard in the areas that we can win... or we will lose.
|
|