Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: GCongress> Rick's Police State closing in?

Expand Messages
  • Steven Pattison
    I don t necessarily disagree but please explain to all of us why is the term Citizen capitalized every time in the Constitution for the United States of
    Message 1 of 92 , Nov 29, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't necessarily disagree but please explain to all of us why is the term
      'Citizen' capitalized every time in the 'Constitution for the United States
      of America <http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm> ' and from the 14th
      amendment it is not! Just because the attorneys were taught to not
      capitalize the term doesn't mean what I reported was not completely correct,
      does it?



      Also the term Person is also capitalized each and every time in the
      'Constitution for the United States of America
      <http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm> ' and I didn't check the 14th
      amendment but I bet it is not capitalized there either.



      Doesn't it mean when a word is capitalized that it is a Proper Noun and not
      a common noun?



      I again state for the record that it is not the whole issue. OK?



      Have you read what I posted here
      http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/11/02/a-time-for-choosing-part-1/



      You wrote in part, "Research into the term United States" and I have a
      simple question. If they define the term United States as a Federal
      Corporation how can they have citizens?





      All Rights Reserved,

      /S/ Steven Pattison

      Cell (913) 461-1661


      <http://www.google.com/search?q=skype+download&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=or
      g.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a> Skype - steven.wayne.pattison





      From: generalcongress-bounces@...
      [mailto:generalcongress-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Bill M.
      Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:40 AM
      To: Steven Pattison; 'Lou & Bob Wynman';
      World-wide_Politics@yahoogroups.com; generalcongress@...
      Cc: bo@...
      Subject: Re: GCongress> Rick's Police State closing in?



      If one takes the time to study the 14th amendment cases on citizenship one
      discovers that there are state citizens and US Citizens.



      Capitolization is not the issue but wheher one is a citizen by virture of
      being a citizen of a state under a state constitution or a citizen by
      virture of the creation of the 14th amendment.



      Each form of citizenship is very different and confers a very different
      level of rights.



      As of the early 1950's the gov has been pretending everyone is a US / 14th /
      Fed citizen.



      Reseach into the term United States in regard to citizenship is made very
      clear in the 14th cases and otherwise - such as Downs v Bidwell 1901.



      ----- Original Message -----

      From: Steven Pattison <mailto:stevenpattison@...>

      To: 'Lou <mailto:bobalou@...> & Bob Wynman' ;
      World-wide_Politics@yahoogroups.com ; generalcongress@...

      Cc: bo@...

      Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 6:19 AM

      Subject: Re: GCongress> Rick's Police State closing in?



      If anyone capitalizes the letter 'C' in the word 'Citizen' when used in
      connection to the term 'United States' as used in the Organic Federal
      Constitution, the term

      'Citizen of the United States' then only meant one thing that is a Free
      State Citizen of the Union of States that created the thing known today as
      their government sometimes referred to as the United States but in no way is
      this entity a Corporation as that same term is defined within the U.S.
      CODES.



      Therefore if you declare that you are then you are! Do a search here -
      http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm for the term 'Citizen'. All the
      terms 'Citizen' are capitalized, period of story.



      I am not a United States citizens as that term is used in "Trading with the
      Enemies Act of 1917, as modified on March 9, 1933 (search Congressional
      Record, March 9, 1933, Emergency Banking Act, Trading with the Enemies Act".



      Sure after the de facto took control they started doing many things that
      were unconstitutional. If you have more questions please contact me.
    • Jude
      But who is the loyalty to is my question. From: World-wide_Politics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:World-wide_Politics@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Pattison
      Message 92 of 92 , Dec 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment

        But who is the loyalty to is my question.

         

        From: World-wide_Politics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:World-wide_Politics@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Pattison
        Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 8:20 AM
        To: 'Bill M.'; 'Tom Murphy'; 'Lou & Bob Wynman'; World-wide_Politics@yahoogroups.com; generalcongress@...
        Cc: bo@...
        Subject: |World-Wide_Politics| RE: GCongress> Rick's Police State closing in? [1 Attachment]

         

         

        [Attachment(s) from Steven Pattison included below]

        Dear Bill,

         

        Each of the Southern States had new constitutions where only a citizen of the United States could vote after they were required just like in Missouri to take a loyalty oath. This webpage tells us:

         

        In fact, no less a Union personage than Major-General Frank Blair --who had done more than all of Missouri's Radical Republicans combined to keep her in the Union when the issue was in doubt in early 1861-- declined to take the Oath in 1865 and was refused the right to vote.

         

        We even found a court case where all the officers and appointed officials that were required to take an Oath of Office were required to take the loyalty oath and one man took it to court and lost. And that is where these people became de facto and everything they did was officially de facto including the new constitutions because their actions were without lawful authority as Dan Meador talks about in Agents of a Foreign Government:

         

        One significant proof we had was that there are no implementing regulations for section 7621 of the Internal Revenue Code, which authorizes the President to establish revenue districts. Consequently, there are no revenue districts in States of the Union.

        [break]

        In his article, Cooper cited the Federal Register and the Internal Revenue Manual acknowledgement that Congress never created a Bureau of Internal Revenue. We have since located a decision where Supreme Court justices acknowledged that Congress never created a Bureau of Internal Revenue or Internal Revenue Service. Consequently, IRS has no lawful authority to enforce anything in the Union as Congress is charged with responsibility for establishing any government department or agency that the Constitution itself does not establish. If it isn't established by law enacted in compliance with the constitutionally prescribed legislative process, an agency doesn't legitimately exist. It has no lawful authority. Whatever it undertakes is de facto -- it may do one thing or another in fact, but all acts are without lawful authority.

         

        Money, Credit & Banking Memorandum Dan Meador also kind a says the money is de facto.

         

        Anything that is not correctly done with delegated authority is unconstitutional and allowed to continue is ‘de facto’, it only becomes null and void after it is exposed as being de facto.

         

        If you read the history of the Reconstruction Acts you will learn that dully elected Officials including some Governors were removed and a new man placed without a lawful election. Then in some states the 14th amendment was passed in the Federal Congress without the number of states required to even pass an amendment required by the Federal Constitution. This is called Sedition on the part of someone acting without any constitutionally delegated authority. Now we have to Constitutionally Notice using ‘in Law’ which is stated in the Federal Constitution which can only mean Common Law as reported in the book used to teach lawyers found in the last paragraph of the Introduction:

         

        When our forefathers established governments in America they laid their foundations on the common law. And when difficulties grew up between them and the mother country, they acted as their English ancestors had always acted in their political troubles - interposed the common law as the shield against arbitrary power. When the United Colonies met in Congress, in 1774, they claimed the common law of England as a branch of those "indubitable rights and liberties to which the respective colonies are entitled." And the common law, like a silent providence is still the preserver of our liberties.

         

        What we are doing is ‘Righting the Wrongs’ of the past and if properly done we can restore the first Missouri Constitution because all of the next three constitutions that were written and used to create a new state government.

         

        DE FACTO, i. e. in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done; a president of the United States de facto is one in the exercise of the executive power, and is distinguished from one, who being legally entitled to such power is ejected from it; the latter would be a president de jure. An officer de facto is frequently considered as an officer de jure, and his official acts are of equal validity. 10 S. & R. 250; 4 Binn. R. 371; 11 S. & R. 411, 414; Coxe, 318; 9 Mass. 231; 10 Mass. 290; 15 Mass. 180; 5 Pick. 487. http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_d.htm

         

        If no one objects then the newly placed officers his official acts are of equal validity until challenged with a QUO WARRANTO, remedies. By what authority or warrant. The name of a writ issued in the name of a government against any person or corporation that usurps any franchise or office, commanding the sheriff of the county to summon the defendant to be and appear before the court whence the writ issued, at a time and place therein named, to show "quo warranto" he claims the franchise or office mentioned in the writ. Old Nat. Br. 149; 5 Wheat. 291; 15 Mass. 125; 5 Ham. 358; 1 Miss. 115.

         

        See this webpage where it is reported:

         

        The preambles to the four constitutions for the state of Missouri:

         

        PREAMBLE-1820.

         

        WE, the people of Missouri, inhabiting the limits hereinafter designated, by our representatives in convention assembled, at St. Louis, on Monday the 12th day of June, 1820, do mutually agree to form and establish a free and independent republic, by the name of the "State of Missouri" and for the government thereof, do ordain and establish this constitution.

         

        In the preamble for the constitution of the 'State of Missouri ' 1820,' this preamble states that the people of Missouri, inhabiting the soil, within a specified boundary, ordained and established by the sole and vested authority of the people, through their lawfully elected representatives, created a free and independent republic by the name of the 'State of Missouri'.  This is a lawfully created State.

         

        [The state of Missouri was under martial law from 1861 A. D. to 1877 A. D.]

         

        PREAMBLE-1865.

         

        We, the people of the State of Missouri, grateful to Almighty God, the sovereign ruler of nations, for our State government, our liberties, and our connection with the American Union, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof, and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this revised and amended Constitution:

         

        In the preamble for the Constitution of the State of Missouri ' 1865, it says 'We, the people of the State of Missouri.'  In this preamble the people are the property of the state and not the creators of the state.  They have stated that they are the people of the state.  (Communism)  How can people of the state, create a state inside of an already created state'? They cannot!  And as this preamble was ordained and established by the 'people of the state', therefore this constitution of Missouri 1865 could not have been lawfully created.  There is also no reference to the people as inhabiting within a certain boundary or their representatives.  It is also stated that Almighty God created this State government, and not the people.  Would this therefore be a Theocracy form of government and not a republic form'  Also this preamble acknowledges the fact that the people had no representation as the state of Missouri was under martial law.

         

        PREAMBLE-1875.

         

        We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and grateful for His goodness, do, for the better government of the State, establish this constitution.

         

        PREAMBLE-1945.

         

        [There is no enactment date, there is no record of the votes, and there are no signatures.]

         

        We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the state.

         

        In the preamble for the constitution of the State of Missouri ' 1875 and 1945, which are almost identical, have no reference to; the inhabitants, the boundaries, the representatives in convention, the place, the date, the free and independent republic, the name of the State, and the word 'ordain' is missing.  These constitutions were not "ordained and established" by the inhabitants, only established by the people.  Who then created and named the State of Missouri'? What exactly does this preamble declare'?

         

        Without the proper words as defined from this dictionary it did not create a lawful state by and for all the People inhabiting within - A LAW DICTIONARY ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION by John Bouvier - Bouvier's law dictionary, 3rd edition, 1848:

         

        TO ENACT.  To establish by law; to perform or effect; to decree.  The usual formula in making laws is, Be it enacted.

         

        ESTABLISH.  This word occurs frequently in the Constitution of the United States, and it is there used in different meanings.  (1) To settle firmly, to fix unalterably; as, to establish justice, which is the avowed object of the Constitution.  (2) To make or form; as, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, which evidently does not mean that these laws shall be unalterably established as justice.  (3) To found, to create, to regulate; as, Congress shall have the power to establish post roads and post offices.  (4) To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  (5) To create, to ratify, or confirm; as, we, the people, &c., do ordain and establish this constitution.

         

        PREAMBLE, a preface, an introduc­tion or explanation of what is to follow: that clause at the head of acts of congress or other legislatures which explains the reasons why the act is made.  Preambles are also frequently put in contracts to explain the motives of the contracting parties.

                 2.'A preamble is said to be the key of a statute, to open the minds of the makers as to the mischiefs which are to be remedied, and the objects which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statute.  It cannot amount, by implication, to enlarge what is expressly given.  How fair a preamble is to be considered evidence of the facts it recites.

         

        ORDAIN.  To ordain is to make an ordinance, to enact a law.

                 2. - In the constitution of the United States, the preamble declares that the people "do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."  The 3d article of the same constitution declares, that "the judicial power shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

         

        If you research your State records, you will find the same thing happened in all the states that were states before the Civil War with some variation if it was a southern state or a northern state! They were all changed into a territorial constitutions and even Posterity does not help because if you continue to do things within the de facto all you get is de facto. We have to restore or start using the lawful state constitutions because that is the only place we could have Standing.

         

        The courts are all de facto in fact everything you see is de facto in some way.

         

        And now for the most important thing is that the first and only lawfully created Constitution 1820 of Missouri can we have ‘Posterity’ for the People within Missouri today.

         

        If you do research for the term de facto you will find that the definitions have been change many times by explaining it a little different or adding something and then deleting from the next version of Black’s Law Dictionary which we believe is a dictionary created for the use of Roman Civil Codes. See the 1990 sixth edition what it states within the Preface attached with the following two very important facts:

         

        As shown by the underlined sections of the preface to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1990;

        2nd paragraph;

        "…Congress and the states continue to legislate new rights".

         

        Didn’t the unconstitutional 14th amendment create new rights?

         

        A Final Word of Caution

        The language of the law is ever-changing as the courts, Congress, state legislatures, and administrative agencies continue to define, redefine and expand legal words and terms. Furthermore, many legal terms are subject to variations from state to state and again can differ under federal laws. Also, the type of legal issues, dispute, or transaction involved can affect a given definition usage. Accordingly, a legal dictionary should only be used as a "starting point" for definitions. Additional research should follow for state or federal variations, for further or later court interpretations, and for specific applications. Helpful sources for supplemental research are "Words and Phrases" and WESTLAW.

             THE PUBLISHER

        St. Paul, Minn.

        July, 1990

         

        By what right or delegated authority do any of the people identified in the ‘A Final Word of Cautionredefine and expand legal words and terms?

         

        I am not "anti-American".

         

        To urge such a reexamination is not to be "anti-American". It might be anti-Empire, as part of the positive and healthy goal of a Constitutional Common Law Republic and therefore is not an action of SEDITION, because it is not a revolt against a legitimate authority - Erskine, Princ. Laws Scotl. b. 4, t. 4, s, 14; Dig. Lib. 49, t. 16, l. 3, §19. 

         

        Some of the other states had constitutions that was not properly adopted but we don’t believe that will be a problem once the People declare that they are Freemen and Freewomen, collective sovereigns to correct those errors. Now if you go to our research site on Missouri you will find it explained how a second constitution was written creating a second state within the lawfully created state by the changing definitions of ‘government de facto’;

         

        Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition page 697 –

        Government de facto.  A government of fact. A government actually exercising power and control, as opposed to the true and lawful government; a government not established according to the constitution of the nation, or not lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless supplanted or displaced the government de jure. A government deemed unlawful, or deemed wrongful or unjust, which, nevertheless, receives presently habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.

        There are several degrees of what is called “de facto government.”  Such a government, in its highest degree, assumes a character very closely resembling that of a lawful government.  This is when the usurping government expels the regular authorities from their customary seats and functions, and establishes itself in their place, and so becomes the actual government of a country.  The distinguishing characteristic of such a government is that adherents to it in war against the government de jure do not incur the penalties of treason; and, under certain limitations, obligations assumed by it in behalf of the country or otherwise will, in general, be respected by the government de jure when restored. Such a government might be more aptly denominated a “government of paramount force,” being maintained by active military power against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and obeyed in civil matters by private citizens. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less by military force. Thorington v. Smith, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 1, 19 L.Ed. 361.

        Sixth Edition page 416 –

        De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.

        Worthham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145.

        SEVENTH EDITION page 703 –

        De facto government. 1. A government that has taken over the regular government and exercises sovereignty over a nation. 2. An independent government established and exercised by a group of a country’s inhabitants who have separated themselves from the parent state.

         

        Each of the above has something new and the best one is for state government change is “2. An independent government established and exercised by a group of a country's inhabitants who have separated themselves from the parent state.” The best one for the Federal Government is “A government actually exercising power and control, as opposed to the true and lawful government; a government not established according to the constitution of the nation, or not lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless supplanted or displaced the government de jure. A government deemed unlawful, or deemed wrongful or unjust, which, nevertheless, receives presently habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.

         

        Search within Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004):

         

        Page 1072 - de facto court (di fak-toh).1. A court functioning under the authority of a statute that is later adjudged to be invalid. — Also termed court de facto. [Cases: Courts 59. C.J.S. Courts § 8.] 2. A court established and acting under the authority of a de facto government.

         

        Page 1258 - de facto (di fak-toh also dee or day), adj.[Law Latin “in point of fact”] 1. Actual; existing in fact; having effect even though not formally or legally recognized <a de facto contract> 2. Illegitimate but in effect <a de facto government>. Cf. DE JURE.

         

        Page 1259 - DE FACTO GOVERNMENT de facto government. See GOVERNMENT.

         

        Page 2044 - de facto government (di fak-toh).1. A government that has taken over the regular government and exercises sovereignty over a nation. 2. An independent government established and exercised by a group of a country's inhabitants who have separated themselves from the parent state. — Also

        termed government de facto. de jure government. A functioning government that is legally established. — Also termed government de jure.

         

        Page 2047 - GOVERNMENT DE FACTO

        government de facto. See de facto government under GOVERNMENT.

         

        You fully do not understand the GAME they are playing with us.

         

        Pick any of the following and prove me wrong:

         

        ·  Legality of the 14th Amendment (Congressional Record)

        www.civil-liberties.com/cases/14con.html

        THE 14TH AMENDMENT -. EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION. (Mr. Rarick (at the request of Mr. Pryor) was granted permission to extend ...

        You've visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 10/30/11

        ·  Separation of Dual Sovereign Powers

        www.civil-liberties.com/pages/cases.html

        The 14th Amendment- Equal Protection Law or Tool of Usurpation (Congressional Record). Dyett v. Turner 14th Amendment not ratified. The Cheek Case a ...

        ·  [PDF] 

        THE 14th AMENDMENTEQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF ...

        www.pacinlaw.org/.../Congressional_Record_14th_Amend_1967.pdf

        File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
        THE 14th AMENDMENTEQUAL PROTECTION. LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION. Mr. PRYOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from ...

        ·  Re: 14th Amendment - Equal Protection Law or Tool of Usurpation

        groups.yahoo.com/group/NorthAmexemObservers/message/9438?...

        Sep 4, 2010 – Re: 14th Amendment - Equal Protection Law or Tool of Usurpation, Topic List < Prev Topic | Next Topic > ...

        ·  14th Amendment - Equal Protection Law or Tool of Usurpation - We ...

        wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/14th-amendment-equal

        Aug 18, 2010 – The Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646. pdf A 'citizen of the United States' is a civilly dead entity operating as a ...

        ·  14th Amendment - Equal Protection Law or Tool of Usurpation ...

        defeatcommunism.com/profiles/blogs/14th-amendment-equal

        Aug 18, 2010 – The Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646. pdf A 'citizen of the United States' is a civilly dead entity operating as a ...

        ·  14th Amendment - Equal Protection Law or Tool of Usurpation - NO ...

        nowewont.ning.com/profiles/blogs/14th-amendment-equal

        Aug 18, 2010 – The Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646. pdf A 'citizen of the United States' is a civilly dead entity operating as a ...

        ·  14th Amendment Ratified, free PDF download

        printfu.org/14th+amendment+ratified

        Block all printfu.org results

        Congressional Record -- House June 13, 1967 H7161 THE 14TH AMENDMENT - EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION (Mr. Rarick (at the ...

         

        The only reason that none of the Union States in 1967 were able to correct this wrong was because they were all reorganized as territorial states and under the jurisdiction of the Federal Congress leaving them without Standing to act.


        THE NON-RATIFICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
        By Utah Supreme Court Justice A. H. Ellett

         

        All the current 50 states are territorial governments which make them de facto governments.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.