US regressing into a developing nation for most people, MIT professor warns

US regressing into a developing nation for most people, MIT professor warns

US regressing into a developing nation for most people, MIT professor warns
Growing income inequality is turning the US into a dual economy, with one economy for the rich and another for the poor, according to an MIT professor, who warns that the middle class is vanishing.

In his new book, “The Vanishing Middle Class,” Peter Temin, professor emeritus of economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, warns that the US is moving backward and becoming more like a developing nation, as the “the vanishing middle class has left behind a dual economy.

We are still one country, but the stretch of incomes is fraying the unity of the nation,” Temin wrote in the introduction of his book, according to a copy obtained by Barnard College.

The economist describes a dual economy, where the gap between the rich and the poor has grown wider.

Temin points to a study from the Pew Research Center, which, he said, “shows that the income share lost by the middle class has gone to people earning more than double the median income.

“In short, the rich got richer. The poor did not disappear, and the middle class shrank sharply,” Temin wrote. “We are on our way to become a nation of the rich and the poor with only a few people in the middle.”

Temin argues that American history and politics had a lot to do with the increasing wealth inequality.

Over a period of 40 years, from World War II to the 1970s, Temin said that wages grew with the rest of the economy. Then, starting in the 1970s, national production continued to grow, but wages did not.

“The middle class’s share of total income fell 30 percent in 44 years,” Temin wrote.

The wealthiest 20 percent of the population had access to education, good jobs and social networks, while the other 80 percent was increasingly burdened with debts, low-wage jobs, and health problems. Now, Temin said the conditions where many poorer Americans live in resemble developing countries, with dilapidated housing, crumbling public transportation, and roads and neglected social structures.

Temin splits the economy into the “FTE sector” (finance, technology, and electronics) and low-skill work. The economic gap between rich and poor began with the war on drugs, he said.

“The low-wage sector—like the FTE sector—was born in 1971 as President [Richard] Nixon replaced [President Lyndon B.] Johnson’s War on Poverty with a new War on Drugs and appointed Lewis Powell to the Supreme Court,” Temin wrote. “As the War on Drugs expanded in subsequent decades, it was enforced far more strongly for African Americans than for whites, becoming… the ‘New Jim Crow,’ revamping and renewing the racist intent of the repressive old anti-black Jim Crow laws that followed Reconstruction in the South.”

After that, Temin said, the FTE sector became driven by money and free-market individualism. They began to ignore the needs of the low-wage sector, turned away from public-spirited universalism to free-market individualism and even began to work against the low-wage sector.

The FTE sector was able to stay in power, Temin said, because of Investment Theory of Politics, which he describes as “the connection between the income distribution in the United States and political decisions.

Investment Theory of Politics was developed by political scientist Thomas Ferguson, director of research at the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), who said that there is a direct correlation between the money major political parties spend and the votes they win.

The evidence can be seen in a simple graph from a study conducted by the Roosevelt Institute on the influence money had on the 2012 presidential election.

Temin used a model created by Nobel Prize winner Arthur Lewis, which was designed to describe how far inequalities have progressed in developing nations. When Temin used the applied the model to the US, he said: “The Lewis Model actually works.

“We have a structure that predetermines winners and losers. We are not getting the benefits of all the people who could contribute to the growth of the economy, to advances in medicine or science which could improve the quality of life for everyone — including some of the rich people,” Temin wrote, according to the Independent

To break the cycle, Temin provides some recommendations, including reducing mass imprisonment, which costs around $1 trillion a year, or 6 percent of the total US gross domestic product, according to a 2016 study from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

He recommends using the money to increasing funds for public education, so families can escape the low-skill trap and integrate into the broader economy.

Federal Tax Case Shows Evidence the U.S. Legal System is a Fraud

Federal Tax Case Shows Evidence the U.S. Legal System is a Fraud

ATTENTION: To get the PDF files of the court case in this article, click on this link and then click on the appropriate links to view or download them. Please do not ask me personal questions about this court case, because I am not a part of it. The content about this court case was originally published on SupremeCourtCase.WordPress.com. I recommend reading the content in the comment section at the end of this article, because it has some interesting information on the legal system.

If you have been reading my articles about the legal system, you should know that this system is a big fat FRAUD and is run by a bunch of TRAITORS to humanity! The content below will show you more evidence of this fraud against humanity. For some reason, I could not find the court case No. 4:14-CV-0027 on txcourts.gov.

As always, use your intuition to help you discern the information and do your own research to verify the information below. Thanks to Steve for sending me the link to this article. ~ PL Chang

Sister Federal tax case: Petitioner demands Court’s constitutional authority; plaintiff and Court go silent; Petitioner demands immediate dismissal and costs, restitution, and damages of $1,841,451.45

(SupremeCourtCase.wordpress.com) The case featured in this website appealed to the Supreme Court is Southern District of Texas, Houston Division No. 4:14-CV-0027.

There is another case against Petitioner being handled by the same Assistant U.S. Attorney, the sister case: Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division No. 9:14-CV-138 (the “Lufkin Case”).

Petitioner’s filings in the Lufkin Case have been fielded by multiple judges and magistrates from three different judicial districts. The government has made no progress in 14 months.

When Petitioner made a motion for the first judge in the Lufkin Case—Eastern District of Texas Chief Judge Ron Clark—to recuse (self-disqualify) himself for incompetence by reason of ignorance of law (and provided evidence proving the same), Judge Clark went silent and remained so. Six weeks later the case was removed to a different judicial district (Tyler Division) under a different judge. The case is now back in the Lufkin Division; Judge Clark is not involved.

For any court to exercise jurisdiction in a particular geographic area, there is a requirement that the Constitution must have given the court the capacity to take it; to wit:

“It remains rudimentary law that “[a]s regards all courts of the United States inferior to this tribunal [United States Supreme Court], two things are necessary to create jurisdiction, whether original or appellate. The Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it. . . .” [Emphasis in original.] Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989).

That a lawsuit is authorized by the statutes of Congress, however, is not, in and of itself, sufficient to vest jurisdiction in any Federal court; to wit:

“So, we conclude, as we did in the prior case, that, although these suits may sometimes so present questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States that the Federal courts will have jurisdiction, yet the mere fact that a suit is an adverse suit authorized by the statutes of Congress is not in and of itself sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Federal courts.” Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505, 513 (1900).

Article III of the Constitution creates the Supreme Court and authorizes Congress to ordain and establish inferior trial courts of special (or limited) jurisdiction—with no authority to exercise general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject matter) anywhere in the Union.

Courtesy of Congress, however (since no later than June 25, 1948), every United States District Court is a court of general jurisdiction and hears and decides both civil and criminal cases, an implied power granted only in the territorial clause of the Constitution, Article 4 § 3(2), and only in Federal territory, such as the District of Columbia and the territories; to wit, in pertinent part:

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; . . .”

All Federal civil and criminal proceedings fall under Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure.

Congress define “judgment” in Title 28 U.S.C., Chapter 176, Section 3002(8) as follows:

“‘Judgment’ means a judgment, order, or decree entered in favor of the United States in a court and arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt.”

(EDITORS NOTE: An ORDER is a Negotiable Instrument term for a promise to pay, regarding a debt!)

On September 14, 2015, Petitioner files in the Lufkin Case, “Defendant’s Objection to Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas” (the “Objection and Demand”) (hyperlinked below).

The statutory period for plaintiff United States to respond to the Objection and Demand is 14 days.

On September 29, 2015, 15 days after the filing of the Objection and Demand, the record in the Lufkin Case is devoid of response from either plaintiff or the Court—and Petitioner transmits to the clerk on that date, for filing September 30, 2015, “Demand for Dismissal, with Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for Lack of Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas” (the “Demand for Dismissal”) (hyperlinked below).

The reason neither plaintiff nor the Lufkin Court could produce the constitutional authority that allows the Court to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in Tyler County, Texas, is because there is no such constitutional authority.

For the Lufkin Court to reveal that it is using Article 4 § 3(2) of the Constitution to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas, and extend its jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution for territorial courts of general jurisdictioninto geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for constitutional courts of special (or limited) jurisdiction, would be to confess to usurpation of exercise of jurisdiction and treason to the Constitution.

“How can this be?” or “How can they get away with this?” you may ask.

The answer is simple.

When Congress define a word or expression by legislative act, the ordinary and popular meaning (as found in the dictionary or encyclopedia) is stripped away and the new term means only what Congress define it to mean—and there is no discretion for anyone to take such term in any other way than provided in the statute.

In all civil and criminal proceedings in United States District Courts, “United States” is a term with a special definition and meaning.

In Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, in the chapter and section that defines “court,” “debt,” “judgment,” and “United States” (Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure, Section 3002), “United States” means a Federal corporation (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)).

In the United States District Court conducting the Lufkin Case, “United States” means a Federal corporation—and the ultimate parent Federal corporation, over all other Federal entities of any kind—is the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.[1]

Every appearance of “United States” in anything and everything relating to Federal district courts means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation; e.g.:

  • “Congress of the United States” means, literally, Congress of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.
  • “Title 28 United States Code” means, literally, Title 28 District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Code.
  • “United States District Court” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District Court.
  • “United States District Judge” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District Judge.
  • “United States Attorney” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Attorney.

In Federal civil and criminal proceedings, there is no discretion for anyone to take “United States” any other way.

Actors in government rely on cognitive dissonance[2] on the part of victims of the Federal word game to perpetrate the fraud, commit treason to the Constitution, and subject the American People to District of Columbia municipal law.

The hoax is protected by a culture of silence among all initiates in the Federal judiciary, Department of Justice, and other key positions in government.

And that is how they get away with it.

In summation: United States District Courts (i.e., Article 4 § 3(2) District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Courts) have extended their jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution for territorial courts of general jurisdiction (District of Columbia and the territories only), into geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for constitutional courts of special / limited jurisdiction (the Union).

There is no constitutional authority that gives any contemporary United States District Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in any county in America—and no one can produce such authority.

Objection and Demand, September 14, 2015

Demand for Dismissal, September 30, 2015

[1] “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871; later legislated in “An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74 (in force as of December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)).

[2] In general, people cannot reconcile the 75 absurd, convoluted definitions of “United States” scattered throughout the United States Code with what they believe is the United States. For those few souls who manage to figure it out and speak up about it, actors in government follow a culture-of-silence policy of “Never respond, confirm, or deny.” Examples of this are (1) Chief Judge Ron Clark’s six weeks of silence following Petitioner’s motion for him to recuse himself for incompetence by reason of ignorance of law, and (2) ZERO government progress in the Lufkin Case in more than 14 months.

If a particular intended victim persists, government actors may mock / ridicule him by implication by quoting him, as if to say, “Can you believe how crazy this guy is? He thinks the United States is a Federal corporation!” (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)), knowing it will be next to impossible for the victim to secure general agreement in society as to the truth of the matter.

Petitioner obviates the cognitive-dissonance factor in the Lufkin Case by going straight to the supreme determinant, upon which the Lufkin Court’s very existence depends: the constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in Tyler County, Texas. There is no such constitutional authority—and the Lufkin Court and every other United States District Court located throughout the Union is a kangaroo court with no lawful authority to do business in any county, borough, or parish in America.

Sister Federal tax case: Judge and DOJ attorneys abandon case midstream, decline to participate any further

On September 14, 2015, Petitioner filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Case No. 9:14-CV-138, Defendant’s Objection to Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas (the “Objection and Demand”).

Plaintiff United States had 14 days to respond, but went silent (first and only time of which Petitioner is aware, that the government failed to respond to a challenge of jurisdiction).

As of September 29, 2015, it was incumbent on the Court to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (h)(3) or 41(b).

The Court, however, stood mute.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed on September 30, 2015, Petitioner’s Demand for Dismissal, with Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for Lack of Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas (the “Demand for Dismissal”).

Plaintiff had until October 14, 2015, to produce the constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas.

As of this post (October 28, 2015), 44 days have passed since the filing of the Objection and Demand and 28 since the Demand for Dismissal and neither the judge nor either of the Department of Justice attorneys has responded in any way following Petitioner’s demands.

The reason neither the judge nor DOJ attorneys will respond or confirm or deny Petitioner’s filings, is that anything that any of them may say in writing—whether for or against Petitioner—will evince treason to the Constitution, not only on their part, but on the part of every other Federal judge and DOJ attorney doing business anywhere in the Union.

Notwithstanding that the penalty for treason to the Constitution is death, the Federal judge and DOJ attorneys in this case have a more pressing situation on their hands:

The entire fraudulent Federal judicial apparatus is at stake because no contemporary Federal court has the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, or decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in any county, parish, or borough in America—and there is no reason why the above filings from this case will not produce the same results in any other Federal case, civil or criminal, anywhere in the Union.

If the Department of Justice cannot win a case anywhere in America, the days of the hoax of Federal jurisdiction over the American People are numbered.

The sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division was an attempt to foreclose on Federal tax liens filed against Petitioner’s ranch. Judge and plaintiff having departed the field of battle, said case is over in substance—Petitioner prevailing.

Regarding the original Federal tax case, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil No. 4:14-cv-0027 (which the Supreme Court declined to review): There are other remedies available to Petitioner and Petitioner is pursuing them. Developments will be posted on this website as they occur.

* * * *

Note: If a sufficient number of requests are received (under “Leave a comment” in the left-hand margin above), Petitioner will make available in PDF format on this website the docket and full contents of the record of both the original Houston Division case and the sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division. The record of these two cases chronicles and documents certain seminal congressional acts that are not taught in any school but have been used to deceive and deprive the American People of the unalienable and constitutional Right of Liberty and foist upon them (1) so-called civil (municipal) rights, (2) rules and regulations (statutes), and (3) municipal (Roman civil) law—a state of affairs abhorrent to the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution for which they all risked their life to escape. The Lufkin Division case is the first time in American history that a defendant overcame and nullified the hoax of Federal jurisdiction and caused the United States District Judge, United States Attorney, and Assistant United States Attorney to flee.

Source:

To learn more about the court cases in this article, visit SupremeCourtCase.WordPress.com.

Social Security Numbers are only for FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

This is important because if the only reason why IRS TAXES are paid is that one is voluntarily employed as Withholding Agents— Warrant Officers in the Merchant Marines, then Minimum Wage Applies!

To put this in perspective, the ARTIFICIAL PERSON is a JOB.  Each Birth Certificate, Social Security Number, Driver’s License, Voter IDentity (card), Passport is unto itself AN EMPLOYED JOB that REQUIRES MINIMUM WAGE.  This minimum wage applies 24-7, 365 days per year for employment in each of these JOBS.  In the UNITED STATES, INC, this form of UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME has been required since 1938…  and we can and should demand back pay at this time.  Production is being hampered by hyper creation of debt outside the legitimate economy, AI and robots are taking over.  Simultaneously, the Governmental Service Corporations are laying claim to ALL computers and AI!

Simply for HAVING a Social Security/Driver’s License artificial person, the Federal Gov. Service Corp./STATE is required by minimum wage to be paying us, the human, for employment into the public position.  This applies to all nations, including and not limited to: Russia, China, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Israel, North Korea, South Korea, Mexico, Canada, Australia, all UK, European Union, South Africa, and even Costa Rica, Bahamas, Puerto Rico, and Cuba!  All “nations” are Governmental Service Corporations that use ARTIFICIAL PERSON concepts to overlay a corporation over the human, but without attorneys being honest and telling us that this is what they do.

The corporation overlay is what degrades human rights into corporate benefits and why corporate personhood is so important…  humans can only retain “rights” as trade-name/trusts/insurance franchise/corporations if corporations are given personhood.

Corporate Personhood is a mere “LEGAL FICTION” and entirely UNTRUE -a farce-, just like death, and birth are “LEGAL FICTIONS”.  We are all eternal souls.

Public Notice Provided to All Federal Employees and Agency Personnel Including IRS/Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Personnel

by: Paul Stramer

Social Security Numbers can only be issued to federal “employees” / “citizens” for use only in the performance of their official duties.  See 20 CFR §422.104.  SSN’s used as TIN’s apply to the same Persons/PERSONS.

That is, only federal Persons (Territorials) or PERSONS (Municipals) can be issued Social Security Account Numbers/TIN’s and that is the way it has always been, except…….

FDR and the Federal WWII Era Congress got around this and included millions of patriotic Americans by conscripting “volunteers” who agreed to pay federal income taxes as a “Victory Tax”. They did this by arbitrarily defining such voluntary taxpayers as Withholding Agents— Warrant Officers in the Merchant Marines.

The Victory Tax was supposed to sunset upon the “cessation of hostilities”, however, in September of 1945, Congress conveniently forgot to put a specific end date on this arrangement and the Internal Revenue Service continued to collect –thus changing this from a voluntary arrangement to help win the war– to an international extortion racket.

This is your reminder that the Second World War hostilities ended in September of 1945.

Any American “volunteer” who isn’t actually and naturally eligible for Social Security and who wishes to “retire” from the presumption of federal service and who revokes their election to pay federal taxes must be immediately set free and permanently released from any obligation to report, to pay, or accept responsibility for any federal Person/PERSON, and cannot otherwise be encumbered, imposed upon, or subjected by any agency or department of the federal territorial or municipal government (s).

Compulsory “citizenship” does not exist.

Those who have “retired” after becoming vested in the Social Security System as a result of this abuse are owed all their money back and/or all services promised at the time of their enrollment with no presumption of continued federal citizenship or its obligations attaching to them.

The continued issuance of Social Security Numbers to people who aren’t actually federal employees and either United States Citizens or citizens of the United States is illegal entrapment under conditions of non-disclosure and deceit; it results in mischaracterization of political status, involuntary servitude,  identity theft, unlawful conversion of assets and other evils of racketeering committed against Americans who have been deliberately misinformed and told that they have to enroll in Social Security as a requirement of having a job—-any job.

Enrollment in Social Security is only required if they happen to be seeking direct employment with the federal government or are otherwise legitimately considered federal government dependents—verifiable political asylum seekers, etc.

Those born in one of the actual states of the Union who retire from such employment, including military employment, or who, owing no natural allegiance to the Territorial or Municipal governments, and having never been employed by the federal government(s), simply realize these facts and revoke their “election” to pay federal income taxes and cease thereafter to function as voluntary Withholding Agents must be set free from the presumption of any further territorial or municipal obligation.

A similar entrapment occurs when American State Citizens are encouraged to vote in federal and federated state/county elections.  When they “register” to vote, they unknowingly give up their rights as stockholders and electors — an undisclosed loss — and they become “enfranchised” as presumed operators of federal corporation franchises.  This sleight-of-hand conversion of Americans from electors into mere voters again serves to mischaracterize them and defraud them and subject them and deprive them of their natural birth right and material interests at the hands of people who are in fact their employees.

As none of these losses and obligations are ever fully disclosed no valid private contract can be alleged and any American who subsequently rescinds a voter registration must be removed from all registration data bases and held harmless from any presumption of federal enfranchisement.

Let’s just use this one small example of the Big Lie federal employees have been told and that they have been enforcing upon others…..continuing from (1) quoting from Christopher Chapman now:

“§ 422.104. Who can be assigned a social security number.

(a) Persons eligible for SSN assignment. We can assign you a social security number if you meet the evidence requirements in § 422.107 and you are:

(1) A United States citizen; or

(2) An alien lawfully admitted to the United States….

Let’s examine the definition of United States (U.S.) used in Title 26 to see if average Americans who are not employed by the federal government are a citizens of the U.S…..

In most statutes (statute law) the Unites States referred to is federal territory, just as it is in Title 26—- i.e.:

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(9) United States

The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

(10) State —-The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

The term “State” exposes the truth that term “United States” means the District of Columbia and no other.

Let us review, specifically the history of the evolution of this term

The code of Federal Regulation is very definitive by using the word “its”, in lieu of, “their”

Title 26 CFR § 1.1-1(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part:

(1) Section 1 of the [Internal Revenue] Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ….

(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject and subject to its [District of Columbia] jurisdiction is a citizen.

The 1939 Code through 1954 the definition of “State”:

IRC 1954:

Alaska is a U.S. Territory

Hawaii is a U.S. Territory

· 7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the Territories and the District of Colombia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.

Alaska joins the Union, strikeout “Territories” and substitute “Territory of Hawaii”:

Revision 1:

Alaska is a State of the Union

Hawaii is a U.S. Territory

7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the Territory of Hawaii and the District of Colombia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.

Hawaii joins the Union, strikeout “the Territory of Hawaii and” immediately after the word “include”:

Revision 2

Alaska is a State of the Union

Hawaii is a State of the Union

· 7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Notice how Alaska and Hawaii only fit these definitions of [Territorial] “State” before they were declared to be States of the United States of America, and now are hereby admitted into the Union on equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever.[emphasis added]

Let’s examine some court cases that further solidifies this subject:

 

Before the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:

A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions.  The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power  of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States. [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)] [bold emphasis added]

It is true, every person, and every class and description of  persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]  [emphasis added]

… [F]or it is certain, that in the sense in which the word “Citizen” is used in the federal Constitution, “Citizen of each State,” and “Citizen of the United States***,” are convertible terms; they mean the same thing; for “the Citizens of each State are entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,” and “Citizens of the United States***” are, of course, Citizens of all the United States***. [44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting][italics in original, underlines & C’s added]

 As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the Conventions of nine States that established and created the United States***, it is obvious there could not then have existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the United States***, or who possessed the Presidential qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United States***. The United States*** in these provisions, means the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a representative. To be a natural borncitizen of one of the States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a citizen of one of said States at the time of such ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications, according to the true meaning of the Constitution. [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)] [bold and underline emphasis added]
After the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36]   [(1873) emphasis added]
The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other of the state. [Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327][(1874) headnote 8, emphasis added]
We have in our political system a Government of the United States** and a government of each of the several States.Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own ….[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542] [(1875) emphasis added]

One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443. [McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323][(1883) underlines added]

A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, — the right to declare who are its citizens.[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]

[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]

The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution made negroes citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the state in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other of the state.

[4 Dec. Dig. ’06, p. 1197, sec. 11]

[“Citizens” (1906), emphasis added]

There are, then, under our republican form of government,two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person.[Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]

[48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]

There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States** and citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the former without being the latter.

[Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823] [(1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]

A person may be a citizen of the United States** and yet be not identified or identifiable as a citizen of any particular state.[Du Vernay v. Ledbetter] [61 So.2d 573, emphasis added]

… citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.  … citizens of the United States** … were also not thought of; but in any event a citizen of the United States**, who is not a citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal] Constitution.[Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]  [emphasis added]

That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country. [Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)]
No fortifying authority is necessary to sustain the proposition that in the United States a double citizenship exists. A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the Federal Government and at the same time a citizen of the State in which he resides.  Determination of what is qualified residence within a State is not here necessary. Suffice it to say that one possessing such double citizenship owes allegiance and is entitled to protection from each sovereign to whose jurisdiction he is subject.  [Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp. 383 (USDC/WDMO 1953)]
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873).  Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.
[Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (USDC/DCO 1993)]”  unquote Christopher Chapman.

In conclusion….

Attacking Americans who are not obligated in any way to pay federal income taxes, and certainly not obligated to pay “municipal” taxes merely disguised more generally as “federal” taxes, is against the law, both statutory and Public.  Coercing exempt persons and/or denying their claim of exemption is a criminal act of extortionate racketeering and inland piracy.

There are American state nationals (people who live as non-federal, non-citizens) and American State Citizens (who occupy public offices of the land jurisdiction states).  These are distinctly different groups within one Body Politic which is foreign to the “United States” as defined in Title 26 and throughout Federal Code.

None of them are naturally liable to pay federal income taxes and none of them are subject to territorial or municipal law.  The sooner IRS employees become fully acquainted with these facts and the limitations of their powers and jurisdictions with respect to these Americans, the better for everyone involved.

These facts are unwritten by the most fundamental principles giving rise to the government of this country.  Please note the following:

The limited and exclusive power of legislation conferred on the Congress and the geographic authority of these powers is summed up by these controlling sections of the actual Constitution:

  • “power of personal and subject-matter legislation throughout the Union and upon the high seas at Art, I, § 8, cl. 1-16;
  • “power of territorial, personal, and subject-matter legislation over (what will be) the District of Columbia at Art, I, § 8, cl. 17; and
  • “constructive (implied) power of territorial, personal, and subject-matter legislation at Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 in the form of ‘Rules and Regulations,’ id., ‘respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States,’ id., i.e., federal territories and enclaves.

Please note that the Constitution confers upon Congress no power of territorial legislation over any person or property anywhere in the Union.

Unless a person is naturally and/or truly voluntarily subject to the Territorial “United States” defined as the District of Columbia in Title 26, they cannot be subjected as a Municipal citizen, either; and Congress has no delegated legislative power allowing it to usurp its territorial or municipal authority upon the actual states and people otherwise.

Read that as—-no means no.  There’s a difference between consensual sex and rape.

When people born on the land of one of the actual organic states claim their non-territorial, non-municipal, non-citizen political status and give evidence of the same intention by issuing an Act of Expatriation from the presumption of Territorial citizenship, and the surrender of the Municipal PERSON issued to them back to the Secretary of the Treasury, and otherwise give Notice of their revocation of election to pay federal income taxes or to otherwise subject themselves and their assets to any territorial or municipal code, that decision must be respected and adhered to by all agents of the territorial and municipal government without question or exception.

You can tax actual federal territorial and municipal employees all you like.  You can tax political asylum seekers and immigrants. You can tax people who are knowingly and voluntarily officers and employees of federally chartered corporations.

What you cannot do is to blindly assume that the existence of a Social Security Number and Masterfile Account establishes any valid basis for presuming (1) the political status of any individual or (2) any basis for assuming and assessing federal tax liabilities or other merely presumed obligations.

This circumstance is the result of self-interested mismanagement of federal agencies and departments for several generations.  It derives from wholesale distribution of Social Security Numbers and accounts by the Social Security Administration without respect for the limitations imposed by the actual law and without full disclosure to applicants.  It derives from purposeful efforts of the Congress to receive income from Americans under false pretenses—the presumption that they are knowingly and willingly acting as “volunteer” Warrant Officers in the Merchant Marine Service.  Most of all, it results from widespread ignorance among Revenue Agents, federal program administrators, and the general public.

All federal employees, all federal Territorial and Municipal citizens, all federal program administrators and managers need to be fully cognizant of these facts and you are encouraged to share them with your staff, your domestic judicial officers, your family and your friends.

Federal service is meant to be an honorable occupation worthy of respect and support, but when it devolves to purposeful racketeering against the people this same service is meant to serve, prosecution and conflict is the inevitable result.

It is important for federal employees –especially revenue agents and federal territorial and municipal judicial officers— to realize that when they misapply the law and contribute to these self-interested confusions they are committing serious crimes of racketeering, unlawful conversion of assets, inland piracy, personage, and barratry against their employers and benefactors.  These international crimes against Americans have been promoted by the federal governmental services corporations under a pretense of war and wartime necessity.  It is therefore necessary to also address this claim.

The Territorial aka “Federal” Government was created in 1868 in the wake of what is misleadingly called the “American Civil War” upon the release of the so-called Federal Constitution. This document, the “Constitution of the United States of America” presents articles of incorporation for a corporation doing business as the “United States of America” cleverly disguised via similar names deceit to resemble the actual Constitution.

Please note that the actual constitution is: “The Constitution for the united States of America”, not “the Constitution of the United States of America”.  And both these documents are different from the municipal constitution called the “Constitution of the United States”.

This conflict, the so-called “Civil War” was in fact an illegal commercial mercenary conflict taking place on our shores.  It was never declared by any action of the united States of America in Congress Assembled, and it was never resolved by any peace treaty.  Instead, President Johnson declared peace on the land jurisdiction via three public declarations creating a binding contract mandating peace—once again underscoring the fact that this was a commercial mercenary action and no form of actual “war” at all.

Ever since then there has been no sovereign government invoked and no competent land jurisdiction Congress of the actual states of the Union has been convened.  As a result, all so-called “wars” have instead been commercial mercenary actions carried out by corporations and/or internal domestic police actions.

Read that as: Congress has no “war powers”.  “War” has specific requirements and definitions under international law, and twist and turn as they might, the members of Congress— as that body has operated since 1860 —cannot declare actual war or take refuge in any claim of war powers or any doctrine of necessity with respect to the actual states and people of the Union.  What began as a fraudulent and illegal commercial mercenary action remains a fraudulent and illegal commercial mercenary action subject to prosecution as fraud.

It should surprise nobody that the actions of Congress seeking to enrich itself and to usurp against the lawful government of the actual United States by bolstering its territorial hegemony and deceptively terming it the [territorial] “United States” as seen in Title 26, is conceived in fraud and word-smithing and similar names deceits going back six generations.

All Territorial (States of States) and Municipal (STATES OF STATES) are merely franchises of self-interested federal commercial corporations.  They have no vested authority related to the American states and people and have fraudulently usurped upon the jurisdiction and property assets of their employers.

Without the ability to engage in actual war these various commercial corporations have rampaged around under false pretenses and have criminally trespassed on the Americans they are supposed to provide with “essential government services”.  They have also caused a great deal of trouble throughout the rest of the world.

As federal employees and as citizens of the Territorial and Municipal “United States” it is very important for you to become fully aware of the limitations of your position of limited delegated authority and the substantially unfavorable circumstances created by these past actions, events, and public policies espoused by these various incorporated entities.

You should also know that there is no “state” immunity available to invoke as protection against your actions as employees of commercial corporations and in most cases, your offices are not properly insured or bonded.  The sovereign government of this country is vested entirely in the American people and their jural assemblies at both the county and state levels.  Their states are the only ones enjoying sovereign immunity.

This Public Notice is provided in the interest of avoiding unnecessary conflicts between Americans and their federal employees.

All legal presumptions regarding political status based on the existence of Social Security Numbers and Masterfile Accounts are being based on insupportable evidences obtained under conditions of non-disclosure and semantic deceit and implemented via the purposeful World War II Victory Tax circumvention of the actual law pertaining to the issuance of Social Security Numbers.

Such presumptions of federal territorial or federal municipal citizenship cannot be maintained in the face of direct objection and reasonable proof of revocation by American state nationals and American State Citizens.

Notice to Agents is Notice to Principals; Notice to Principals is Notice to Agents

The American States and People
c/o 1336 Staubbach Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99508

Murdered! Supreme Court Justice SCALIA Remains to be Exhumed

Published on Apr 2, 2017

The sudden and unexpected loss of the great Antonin Scalia was a blow to the American justice system that will be felt for years to come. A relatively young man, Justice Scalia was thought to be a conservative staple who would hold his seat for at least another decade. That dream came to an abrupt end when he was discovered dead of natural causes during a hunting retreat. Scalia, who supposedly died of a heart attack while on this hunting trip, wasn’t autopsied when he died because at the time either no foul play was suspected, or it was ignored. But new evidence is coming to light that may change everything we know about how this great man died…evidence which indicates Scalia was murdered. This evidence points to the possibility that the Clintons, John Podesta and Barack Obama may be involved in an effort to prevent the late justice from finding out the truth about something the Clintons did not want known. This evidence may also be related to the PizzaGate pedophile sex trafficking scandal. David Zublick brings you the latest in this special report!

Watch for more.

The Global Debt Collapse Explained in 3 Minutes

Where do the banks get their debt-money from?  NOTHING!!!

They literally just simply CREATE the debt by breaking double entry accounting standards.  Debt comes from nothing.  It monetizes nothing into existence as debt…  aka  the LACK of the thing being present.  Which is then created and paid back….  Only….   The Debt itself is fraudulent as it violates basic business practices and there are no reserves.

Over about $3 million dollars, the banks’ reserve requirements go to ZERO!   All FINES upon banks are negotiable instruments WORTH UNDERWRITING.  Meaning, banks pay fines from debt created from nothing.  Fines are meaningless to banks with underwriting capabilities.

Here is a documentary on the UK system of Debt and how it is fraud: