Blog: Son of Truth of Self
by Chef JeM

Free Yourself From All Semantic Deceptions of Government!

Every word in written law has a legal meaning that often differs from the meaning of the word when used in non-legal contexts.

Date:   1/21/2016 3:24:17 AM   ( 6 y ) ... viewed 1705 times

Many 30, 2020 - Have You Cleared All The Legal Terms? ........ -

"... it is crucial to understand that the definition provided for a term in a law is exclusive. Meaning: a word with a custom definition in the law becomes a legal term and the word is stripped of whatever its ordinary meaning might be, for purposes of that provision of law. The legally defined term literally means ONLY what the custom definition in the law says the term means, and nothing else. This is a well-recognized principle of construction of the law that is perfectly obvious to the courts, but is not something commonly understood by laypeople:

 Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 942, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 2615 (2000) ('When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning.');

 Meese v. Keene, 481 U. S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ('It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term');

 Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. at 392-393, n. 10 ('As a rule, "a definition which declares what a term 'means' ... excludes any meaning that is not stated" ');

 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U. S. 490, 502 (1945) ('Of course, statutory definitions of terms used therein prevail over colloquial meanings.');

 Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N. J., 294 U. S. 87, 95-96, 55 S.Ct. 333, 336 (1935) ('[A] definition by the average man or even by the ordinary dictionary with its studied enumeration of subtle shades of meaning is not a substitute for the definition set
before us by the lawmakers with instructions to apply it to the exclusion of all others.'); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction §47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases).')"[45]*

January 28, 2020 -

Posted at Paul Stramer's site regarding Anna's most current article.

1st comment:

Chef-doctor Jemichel - January 28, 2020 at 2:15 AM -
Re: "If you want to claim your 'Natural and Unalienable' rights ..." The use of the word "if" can appear to turn the Declaration of Independence into some form of a conditional statement whereas what it actually says is: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..." meaning the "Natural and Unalienable rights" have one, pre-existing source that is wholly independent of any kind of act as these Rights exist in full and exclusively by way of the Creator. However the statement could read "If you want to declare your 'Natural and Unalienable' rights" (and possibly add a specific context) then that declaration indicates an extension of these Rights rather than a (questionable) "claim." I wouldn't "claim" I would "assert" (my Rights).[44]

December 17, 2017 - Have You Been Enchanted With Word Magic? -

"... When a word has many definitions, it can easily be used to trick you to agree to give up your natural rights to the State. This art of using words and definitions to trick you to do something is known as word magic."[20]

The above advice was presented after a substantial study of "freedom" and "liberty".[20] This applies to a volume of additional words and phrases commonly used by the government. Besides this there is another volume of words and phrases used by the government that are not defined and yet imply legal obligations contrary to your "natural rights".

Bouvier Law Dictionary (2011) "Freedom - The right to do what one chooses to do. ... the state of being free, is the power to do what one chooses, without a master or restraints created by law. Freedom, like liberty, implies a responsibility that is a natural constraint to act with due regard of others and the good of all; freedom is not license. As freedom is usually understood today, it is synonymous with liberty, but as a matter of historical context, freedom is best understood by its most historically significant antithesis - slavery - as opposed to tyranny, which is the traditional antithesis of liberty."

Therefore we have Man's freedom and a Nation's liberty.

A question to contemplate in light of all the above: Does “Commercial Feudalism”[21] stand in the middle between slavery and tyranny?

April 7, 2018 - The "Enchantment" of "We" -

"...The basic makeup of the State is promoted as a We. We want this. We need this. We deserve this. We all agree on this. The ubiquitous We is floated on purpose. The aim is to eradicate the I. The individual."[34]

December 10, 2018 - Defining "Federal" -

According to Anna Von Reitz:
"The 1824 Webster's Dictionary gives the word 'contract' as a synonym for the word 'federal' --- so the 'federal government' is a 'contract government' --- under contract to provide certain enumerated services."[42]

April 1, 2018 - "... Deception, quick hands, sophistry and obfuscation all constitute the art of magic. -

Those who practice in illusion are called magicians or, in the less poetic sense, 'politicians' – 'now you see me; now you don’t.' The Congress and the IRS are full of magicians who have created their web of deceit and illusion in the tax laws, not by quick hands but by illusory language. Have you ever questioned why your Christian name is spelled in all capital letters, when we all know that English grammar requires the spelling of all proper nouns in upper and lower case letters? I can assure you that it is not for clarity. Does the word 'person' in statutory law mean the same as in everyday language usage? You are about to discover the answer to both of those questions."

March 17, 2018 - Are you a Democrat? -or- More Importantly - Do You Think We Live In A Democracy?

Auguste Blanca: “Beware of words lacking definition” -

“The gradual conversion of the United States from an elitist, oligarchic republic into what is now called a democracy was purely rhetorical. In the 1830s with the election of Andrew Jackson and the rise of more populist forms of political campaigning, the terms democracy and democrat - which were words ‘made of rubber,’ to borrow Auguste Blanqui’s perspicacious depiction in 1852 - increasingly came to be used to describe a system that itself had not undergone any structural change. Through a powerful and pernicious rebranding campaign, which we must admit from today’s vantage point as having been an utter success, an oligarchic and plutocratic system - which was also xenophobic, imperialist, racist, and sexist - was renamed with a term suggesting broad popular participation and support. Blanca presciently exclaimed: ‘Beware of words lacking definition; this is the favorite instrument of schemers … Everyone purports to be a democrat, above all the aristocrats.’”[28]

Additional info on this source (In case anyone is interested): “For better or worse, America lives in the age of ‘worlded' literature. Not the world literature of nations and nationalities considered from most powerful and wealthy to the least. And not the world literature found with a map. Rather, the worlded literature of individuals crossing borders, mixing stories, and speaking in dialect. Where translation struggles to be effective and background is itself another story. The ‘worlded' literature of the multinational corporate publishing industry where the global market is all. The essays in this collection, from some of the most distinguished figures in American studies and literature, explore what it means to consider American literature as world literature.”[29]

Comment: We know that “corporate personhood” became a recognized legal reality as of the late 1800s. The collection of essays cited above may offer a parallel track (of Logos?) to that of the legal shenanigans.

Also “Am I a democrat? ‘Democrat,’ at least for Auguste Blanqui writing in 1852, was a word, as he put it, ‘without definition’: ‘What is a democrat, I ask you. This is a vague and banal word, without any precise meaning, a rubbery word.’

Is ‘democrat’ an any less rubbery name to embrace in our own time?

In June 2008 Ireland, the only country to hold a popular referendum on the European constitution, voted to reject it.”[30]

April 28, 2018 - Semantic Deception By Using Unclear Legal Terms -

State legislatures write legislation in order to be in harmony with the federal Constitution however deceive the people with unclear legal terms such as "privilege", and unfamiliar legal phrases such as "in this state" (See the following entry from the writings of Dr. Ed Rivera). This is called "constructive Fraud".

December 15, 2017 - Dr. Ed Rivera (and readers) Re: Removing Your Property From The Tax Rolls -

"...The main part is defining the language. 'In this state' is corporate Legal color of law words that equal taxes. 'The state' is common law land jurisdiction."[19] - forestqueen on March 12, 2016

"...Property Taxes are a local issue, although “this State” is also part of the solution, look up the meaning of the word 'this'. And if you think you know the meaning of a word don’t assume, go to the etymology and find out what it really means and how it’s used in sentence construction."[19] - Greg on July 1, 2016

May 4, 2018 - "Our Greatest Actual Enemies" -

"... Both ignorance and gullibility remain two of our greatest actual enemies, but we can defeat them in our own lives and change our entire world in the process.

We can learn to look around the corner-- as my Mother used to say -- to perceive the Bad Actors among us and discern the often-exactly-opposite identities and agendas in play all around us.

Once you understand that we are in school and that we are called to learn what evil is, called to recognize it, and called to put an end to it, then our life on Earth and the conditions we face here begin to make a lot more sense.

You all have a mission, a job. That mission includes becoming fearlessly honest and educating yourself so that you can recognize solid facts versus hearsay and gossip, and to become wise in your own right--- no longer relying on anyone else's opinions or group prejudices, no longer accepting circumstances, roles or appearances at face value, becoming aware of it when you are making an assumption about someone or something that may not be true. ..." - "About the Art of Bunk" - By Anna Von Reitz.[36]

May 8, 2018 - George Carlin -

“Carlin’s material falls under one of three self-described categories. ‘the little world’ (observational humor), ‘the big world’ (social commentary), and the peculiarities of the English language (euphemisms, doublespeak, business jargon), all sharing the overall theme of (in his words) ‘humanity’s bullshit’. … Language was a frequent focus of Carlin’s work. Euphemisms that, in his view, seek to conceal or distort the actual meaning …”[37]

I know of no other individual who has consistently delivered caustic commentaries regarding the semantic deceptions of government and in ways that reveal a brand of cognizant dissonance that shortened the gap to humor (no matter that it was often dark) than George Carlin. His ability in this regards is evident in his Human Design - given one of his defined channels described (in part) as follows:

The Channel Of Abstraction ... A Design of Mental Activity mixed with Clarity -

"... Those with definition in Channel 64-47 are always under pressure to sift through a kaleidoscope of mental images from every experience, even their dreams. They are trying to make sense out of the past and gain perspective. They seek a story, or realization to share, either about their life or someone else's, in this lifetime or another.

Background: The Channel of Abstraction is an experiential mental force that dabbles in all kinds of possibilities, regardless of rules, until something mysteriously emerges and makes sense. This is a mind busy with the consequences of being alive. Merging the conceptualization of the neocortex (Ajna Center) with the deep gray matter of the brain (Head Center), it gifts us with the true potential of self-reflected consciousness. ..."[38]

April 13, 2018 - Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM) Addresses This Issue From Several Perspectives! Especially Re: “citizenship”, “United States”, "citizen of the United States", and "State". -

30 CONSTITUTIONAL “Citizens” or “citizens of the United States***” in the Fourteenth Amendment rely on the
31 CONSTITUTIONAL context for the geographical term “United States”, which means states of the Union and EXCLUDES
32 federal territory.
33 “. . .the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases (4) provides authoritative guidance on the
34 territorial scope of the term "the United States" in the Fourteenth Amendment. The
35 Insular Cases were a series of Supreme Court decisions that addressed challenges to duties
36 on goods transported from Puerto Rico to the continental United States. Puerto Rico, like
37 the Philippines, had been recently ceded to the United States. The Court considered the
38 territorial scope of the term "the United States" in the Constitution and held that this
39 term as used in the uniformity clause of the Constitution was territorially limited to the
40 states of the Union. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 ("[A]ll Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
41 uniform throughout the United States." (emphasis added)); see Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S.
42 244, 251, 21 S.Ct. 770, 773, 45 L.Ed. 1088 (1901) ("[I]t can nowhere be inferred that the
43 territories were considered a part of the United States. The Constitution was created by
44 the people of the United States, as a union of States, to be governed solely by
45 representatives of the States; ... In short, the Constitution deals with States, their people,
46 and their representatives."); Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. Puerto Rico was merely a territory
47 "appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States
48 within the revenue clauses of the Constitution." Downes, 182 U.S. at 287, 21 S.Ct. at 787.

(4) De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 21 S.Ct. 743, 45 L.Ed. 1041 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222, 21 S.Ct. 762, 45 L.Ed. 1074 (1901); Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243, 21 S.Ct. 827, 45 L.Ed. 1086 (1901); and Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 S.Ct. 770, 45 L.Ed. 1088 (1901).

[page 31 of 92]

1 The Court's conclusion in Downes was derived in part by analyzing the territorial scope of
2 the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery
3 and involuntary servitude "within the United States, or any place subject to their
4 jurisdiction." U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1 ... The Fourteenth Amendment
5 states that persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
6 thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." U.S. Const.
7 amend XIV, § 1 ... The disjunctive "or" in the Thirteenth Amendment
8 demonstrates that "there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that
9 are no[t] part of the Union" to which the Thirteenth Amendment would apply. Downes,
10 182 U.S. at 251, 21 S.Ct. at 773. Citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, however,
11 "is not extended to persons born in any place 'subject to [the United States ']
12 jurisdiction,' " but is limited to persons born or naturalized in the states of the Union.
13 Downes, 182 U.S. at 251, 21 S.Ct. at 773 ...; see also id. at 263, 21 S.Ct. at
14 777 ("[I]n dealing with foreign sovereignties, the term 'United States' has a broader
15 meaning than when used in the Constitution, and includes all territories subject to the
16 jurisdiction of the Federal government, wherever located."). (5)
17 [Valmonte v. I.N.S., 136 F.3d. 914 (C.A.2, 1998)]
18 STATUTORY citizens under 8 U.S.C. §1401, on ther other hand, rely on the STATUTORY context for the geographical
19 term “United States”, which means federal territory and EXCLUDES states of the Union:
20 TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701. [Internal Revenue Code]
21 Sec. 7701. – Definitions
22 (a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly
23 incompatible with the intent thereof—
24 (9) United States
25 The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and
26 the District of Columbia.
27 (10) State
28 The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such
29 construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
30 ______________
33 Sec. 110. Same; definitions
34 (d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
35 One CANNOT simultaneously be BOTH a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen AND a STATUTORY citizen at the same time,
36 because the term “United States” has a different, mutually exclusive meaning in each specific context.
37 “The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more
38 specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United
39 States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the
40 Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been
41 the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the
42 public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the
43 United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union.

[5] Congress, under the Act of February 21, 1871, ch. 62, § 34, 16 Stat. 419, 426, expressly extended the Constitution and federal laws to the District of Columbia. See Downes, 182 U.S. at 261, 21 S.Ct. at 777 (stating that the "mere cession of the District of Columbia" from portions of Virginia and Maryland did not "take [the District of Columbia] out of the United States or from under the aegis of the Constitution.").

[page 32 of 92]

1 Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in
2 the territories, though within the United States[*], were not citizens. Whether this
3 proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided.”
4 [Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]
5 _______________________________________________________________________
6 The Court today holds that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has no
7 application to Bellei [an 8 U.S.C. §1401 STATUTORY citizen]. The Court first notes that
8 Afroyim was essentially a case construing the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth
9 Amendment. Since the Citizenship Clause declares that: 'All persons born or naturalized in
10 the United States * * * are citizens of the United States * * *.' the Court reasons that the
11 protections against involuntary expatriation declared in Afroyim do not protect all
12 American citizens, but only those 'born or naturalized in the United States.' Afroyim, the
13 argument runs, was naturalized in this country so he was protected by the Citizenship
14 Clause, but Bellei, since he acquired his American citizenship at birth in Italy as a
15 foreignborn child of an American citizen, was neither born nor naturalized in the United
16 States and, hence, falls outside the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees
17 declared in Afroyim. One could hardly call this a generous reading of the great purposes
18 the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to bring about. While conceding that Bellei is an
19 American citizen, the majority states: 'He simply is not a Fourteenth-Amendment-first-
20 sentence citizen.' Therefore, the majority reasons, the congressional revocation of his
21 citizenship is not barred by the Constitution. I cannot accept the Court's conclusion that
22 the Fourteenth Amendment protects the citizenship of some Americans and not others. [.
23 . .]
24 The Court today puts aside the Fourteenth Amendment as a standard by which to
25 measure congressional action with respect to citizenship, and substitutes in its place the
26 majority's own vague notions of 'fairness.' The majority takes a new step with the
27 recurring theme that the test of constitutionality is the Court's own view of what is 'fair,
28 reasonable, and right.' Despite the concession that Bellei was admittedly an American
29 citizen, and despite the holding in Afroyim that the Fourteenth Amendment has put
30 citizenship, once conferred, beyond the power of Congress to revoke, the majority today
31 upholds the revocation of Bellei's citizenship on the ground that the congressional action
32 was not 'irrational or arbitrary or unfair.' The majority applies the 'shock-the-
33 conscience' test to uphold, rather than strike, a federal statute. It is a dangerous concept
34 of constitutional law that allows the majority to conclude that, because it cannot say the
35 statute is 'irrational or arbitrary or unfair,' the statute must be constitutional.
36 [. . .]
37 Since the Court this Term has already downgraded citizens receiving public welfare,
38 Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 91 S.Ct. 381, 27 L.Ed.2d. 408 (1971), and citizens having
39 the misfortune to be illegitimate, Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532, 91 S.Ct. 1917, 28
40 L.Ed.2d. 288, I suppose today's decision downgrading citizens born outside the United
41 States should have been expected. Once again, as in James and Labine, the Court's opinion
42 makes evident that its holding is contrary to earlier decisions. Concededly, petitioner was a
43 citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute.
44 [Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)]
45 STATUTORY citizens are the ONLY type of “citizens” mentioned in the entire Internal Revenue Code, and therefore, the
46 income tax under Subtitles A and C does not apply to the states of the Union.
47 Title 26: Internal Revenue
49 Normal Taxes and Surtaxes
50 § 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

[page 33 of 92]

1 (c) Who is a citizen.
Every person [“person” as used in 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and 26 U.S.C. §7343, which both collectively are officers or employees of a corporation or a partnership with the United States governmnet] born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481–1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70–506, C.B. 1970–2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14
15 [SOURCE:]
16 If you look in 8 U.S.C. §§1401-1459,. the ONLY type of “citizen” is the one mentioned in 8 U.S.C. §1401, which is a
17 human born in a federal territory not part of a state of the Union. Anyone who claims a state citizen or
18 CONSTITUTIONAL citizen is also a a STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” subject to the income tax is engaging in criminal
19 identity theft as documented in the following. They are also criminally impersonating a “U.S. citizen” in violation of 18
20 U.S.C. §911:
21 Domicile and NOT nationality is what imputes a status under the tax code and a liability for tax. Tax liability is a civil
22 liability that attaches to civil statutory law, which in turn attaches to the person through their choice of domicile. When you
23 CHOOSE a domicile, you elect or nominate a protector, which in turn gives rise to an obligation to pay for the civil
24 protection demanded. The method of providing that protection is the civil laws of the municipal (as in COUNTY)
25 jurisdiction that you chose a domicile within.
26 "domicile. A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and
27 permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has
28 the intention of returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310, 213 A.2d. 94. Generally,
29 physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one's home are the requisites
30 of establishing a "domicile" therein. The permanent residence of a person or the place to
31 which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may
32 have more than one residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a person is
33 important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the
34 taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting
35 and other legal rights and privileges."
36 [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485]
37 Later versions of Black’s Law Dictionary attempt to cloud this important distinction between nationality and domicile in
38 order to unlawfully and unconstitutionally expand federal power into the states of the Union and to give federal judges
39 unnecessary and unwarranted discretion to kidnap people into their jurisdiction using false presumptions. They do this by
40 trying to make you believe that domicile and nationality are equivalent, when they are EMPHATICALLY NOT. Here is an
41 example:
42 “nationality – The relationship between a citizen of a nation and the nation itself,
43 customarily involving allegiance by the citizen and protection by the state; membership in a
44 nation. This term is often used synonymously with citizenship. “
45 [Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)]

[34 of 92]

1 Federal courts regard the term “citizenship” as equivalent to domicile, meaning domicile on federal territory.
2 “The words "citizen" and citizenship," however, usually include the idea of domicile,
3 Delaware, L.&W.R.Co. v. Petrowsky, C.C.A.N.Y., 250 F. 554, 557;"
4 [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 310]
The term “citizenship” is being stealthily used by government officials as a magic word that allows them to hide their presumptions about your status. Sometimes they use it to mean NATIONALITY, and sometimes they use it to mean DOMICILE.
The use of the word “citizenship” should therefore be AVOIDED when dealing with the government because its meaning is unclear and leaves too much discretion to judges and prosecutors.
When someone from any government uses the word “citizenship”, you should:
3.1. Tell them NOT to use the word, and instead to use “nationality” or “domicile”.
3.2. Ask them whether they mean “nationality” or “domicile”.
3.3. Ask them WHICH political subdivision they imply a domicile within: federal territory or a constitutional state of
the Union.
failure to either understand or apply the above concepts can literally mean the difference between being a government pet a legal cage called a franchise, and being a free and sovereign man or woman.[35]

[35 of 92]

November 25, 2017 - Understanding the word: "define" and the necessity to know your definitions -

The word: "define" comes directly from Latin definire "to limit, determine, explain,"[16]
To define words, some phrases, etc. is to limit their meaning. This is essential for all legal terms (and ideally for all our agreements whether written or verbal). The words that you think are common everyday words with common everyday meaning very often does not apply to legal definitions. So much so that it's best not to make any assumptions about the meaning of legal terms. See for yourself by checking a legal dictionary for definitions for words such as: person, individual, human being, state, United States, etc. Even an unabridged dictionary can be helpful in this regards. (especially see: person and ask yourself whether you are really a person according to the unabridged definition).

November 30, 2017 -

… unless you are a federal employee or dependent or political asylum seeker, there is no way that you are now nor ever were a "US Citizen", nor have you ever been a "citizen of the United States"---- but by getting your Mother (and you) to ignorantly sign paperwork agreeing that you are such a "citizen" the vermin (government) have an excuse for treating you as one. 

And that's the whole point of the exercise--- to test you and see if you know who and what you are.  If you don't, you are prey. 

This is how they gain the evidence needed to "presume" against you in court.  This is how they allege that you are liable to pay federal income taxes, that you are obligated to follow all 80 million federal codes and statutes, that you are responsible for paying their public debts, that you are subject to their government, that you are "eligible" (and required) to pay into Social Security (which is their private pension plan) and so on.

If you admit to being a "US Citizen", you are one until you go through a very arduous learning and reclamation process to prove that you aren't in fact a "US Citizen" and don't desire any such foreign political status. 

So that's the Entrapment Game--- get you to ignorantly admit being something you aren't and then take full advantage of the admission. 

It's the same thing with admitting to being a "human". 

If you are not a man, they are justified in treating you as something subhuman, something that merely appears to be a man.  And the whole diatribe about "human rights" is just sop, a means of allegedly providing you with "benefits" that you are already owed anyway, that cost them nothing, in exchange for your admission that you aren't really a man or woman--- and are therefore inferior and subject to them. 

Another common gambit is to call you "Mister" or "Miss" or "Missus" or some other "title"---- titles are a British means to subject people to the rule of their government.  In fact, a "Mister" is either a Midshipman in the British Navy, or a Warrant Officer in the British Merchant Marines, which is, interestingly enough also the definition of a "Withholding Agent". 

It's the same thing with the word "resident".  US Citizens--- real ones--- can't own land in the states, because they are foreigners merely "residing" here on a temporary basis while they conduct their business of providing "essential government services". 

If you admit to being a "resident" either by calling yourself one or by allowing one of them to apply that description to you, your claim to own your own property (as in a foreclosure case where this is a common ploy) flies right out the window.  Such verbal tricks are the stock and trade of these fraud artists and you must learn to be wary and recognize them and rebut them whenever and wherever they rear their ugly heads.

Any time anyone applies any kind of descriptive label to you--- balk. Object. Even if you are not sure that there is any agenda afoot, object and "demur" anyway. Give yourself the chance to look up the legal meanings of the words or force your opponent to define the meaning of the word for you.[18]

March 9, 2018 - Link to the Organic Laws in United States Code:

September 18, 2018 - Reverified:

November 16, 2017 -

"...Since 1860 the portion of the sea jurisdiction of America that was entrusted to and operated by the British Monarchs has been operated in fraud... Absolutely every power this foreign entity exercises is a delegated power that they have been allowed to exercise under conditions of contract and trust, which they have violated and breached via semantic deceit, secrecy, and fraud."[14]

November 10, 2019 - The U.S. Code’s Dictionary Act -

1 USC §8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘person', 'human being', ‘child', and ‘individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

1 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2012 Edition
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office,[43]

November 18, 2017 - Continuing -

"...understand the first frauds committed against us, for it is in the beginning that we most clearly see the ends.
1. March 27, 1861, the actual elected Congress ceases to function.
2. Lincoln creates a corporation doing business as 'The United States of America inc.' and uses what is left of the Congress as a Board of Directors.
3. This 'Corporate Congress' changes the meaning of the word 'person' to mean 'corporation' for their own private in-house corporate purposes. See 37th Congress, Second Session, Chapter 119, Section 68 – “Manufactures, Articles, and Products”[27]
4. The Corporate Congress changes the meaning of more words--- according to them, the meaning of the words 'state', 'State' and 'United States' all magically mean 'the territories and the District of Columbia' (13 Stat. 223, 306, ch. 173, sec. 182, June 30, 1864.)

March 17, 2018 - Continuing with "State" -

In an "Act of Congress", July 20, 1868, Congress enacted: "An Act imposing Taxes on distilled Spirits and Tobacco, and for other purposes.". SEC. 104.: "and the word 'State' to mean and include a Territory and the District of Columbia".
Source: "Statutes at Large", Volume XV., Page 166.[31]

Continuing with Distinguishing Between "United States" and "United States of America" -

"...the only clear distinction, or legal definition, of the federal "United States" vis-ŕ-vis the national "United States of America"; ... is revealed in: Title 28-JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE - §1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury."[31] [32]

January 21, 2016 -

I'd like to add additional understanding in response to a letter that was published in the Winter 2015 edition of Wise Traditions.

The letter mentions “fraud”.
Fraud, as in — 'Actionable Fraud' Consists of material representation made with knowledge of falsity and reliance thereon causing injury. — The elements of actionable fraud are: (1) Representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) intent that it should be acted upon; (6) hearer's ignorance of its falsity; (7) his reliance on its truth; (8) his right to rely thereon, and (9) his consequent and proximate injury.[6]

I believe it would be helpful to the readers if the letter writer would be willing to show how these nine elements of fraud apply to the “facts” as he states in regards to the apparent demand that compels parents to “sign off on the birth certificate”. People need to understand the “facts” as they apply to written law so that they can better fulfill their “primary obligation (as) a citizen ... to question authority”![4]

For all those who doubt the use/misuse of the birth certificate to obfuscate the true status of a native born Amercian there is the earlier and thus longer-standing use/misuse of the document known as “the Constitution” with extensive examples of semantic deceit. Our conventional wisdom on the Constitution came by way of government education, one that is full of “smoke and mirrors” regarding the true nature of this document resulting with the Amercian people never getting to see this document in its right relation to the other three Organic Laws. The truly severe consequence is a lack of context in the Law and it is followed by massive confusion regarding how to apply “Constitutional law”. The only way out of this confusion is by including the vital help of true orientation in Law that only comes in light of the other three Organic Laws: The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation and The Ordinance for the Northwest Territory.

Dr. Ed Rivera is the lead professor in the Organic Laws and has trail-blazed all the way through the confusion of the “Constitution” bringing the greatly needed clarity into each and every one of its semantic deceptions.

The first Organic Law is the Declaration of Independence - that leaves us free! You can't write external law for a truly free people because they live under the Common Law just as the American people originally did - living very well without the interference (and all else) of any external government.

Then the Articles of Confederation (AoC) as the second Organic Law established The United States of America to be the Sovereignty of the territories that were gained from Great Britan after the Revolutionary War at the Treaty of Paris.

The third Organic Law is the Ordinance for the Northwest Territory that concerns all the territories that came in after the AoC to corral those territories into additional surveyed lands that constitute thrity-seven new states. This Ordinance was created July 13th, 1787 as a "temporary government" for the territories. The Constitution as the fourth Organic Law is completed just several weeks later on September 17th as the permanent government) - so close that you have to consider the connection, the continuity between these two documents so that when you read the Constitution you apply it to the territories instead of the thirteen states as the government would have you believe!

Ed Rivera founded the Organic Laws Institute to teach people how to read the constitution so that all four documents fit together. Then you can see how free people are not subject to the legislation of an external government as the people of the territories are. Free people are subject only to the Common Law. All four Organic Laws are still in force and you can find them at the very beginning of the United States Code!

Government was created for the territories because the territories don't belong to those who live in the territories, it is the property of the government. The Confederation was set up to act as the legal central government for the states. The states can't individually own the territories. So the government is doing it's job – we just need to understand the limits of its jurisdiction which is relatively easy to do because it is all proprietary-based. However, government extended its jurisdiction via citizenship.

“[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419, 471 (1793).

After the Civil War people voluntarily surrendered their “joint tenancy in the sovereignty” when they accepted citizenship into “the United States”.[7] For over the past century the government has assumed the American people have “surrendered” by the fact that they claim the legislated status[5] to be a "United States citizen" in the many government offers that are made to them. It's an error to think you were born in the United States when actually you were born on the land in one of the United States of America.

To free yourself from the semantic deceptions you will need to get clear on the words used in written law. Major distinctions need to be made between legal terms and phrases starting with: “United States” vs “United States of America”. Once you get clear about the distinction you can understand how there is an office of: “President of the United States”[1] that is distinguished from: “President of the United States of America”[2] (not to mention an additional “Office of President”[3]). Words and word phrases in written law have their legal meaning that often differs from the meaning used in non-legal contexts.

In the prime example of "Presidents" the implications go far beyond the realm of semantics. I have blogged on this under the headline of: "Civilization in Transition" [11]

September 5, 2018 - Government Education -

"... The rotten school system and educational theorists have left two generations of Americans intellectually and emotionally unprepared to deal with reality -- a deficit that must be rapidly repaired. Whining has to give way to self-discipline. Feeling sorry for oneself has to change into compassion for others. Hopelessness has to change into taking charge. And inaction has to transform into organized, purposeful, and determined action to eradicate "victim theology" from our schools, our churches, and our whole way of life."[40]

In the fantasy movie of my life - my recreation of the time when I walked out of my 8th grade class (right after my teacher said to me: "If you don't like it you can leave") instead of returning to the school after my teacher came outside calling my name for me to come back to school - I would ignore her and keep on walking and do just like I was thinking as I left the school: get on the bus, go downtown to the Art Museum and get a much better education then sitting (read: "confined") at a little school desk.[41]

April 2, 2016 -

Some years ago I ordered a book (possibly through a book club) that I had hopes would be edifying for me. The title is "Why America Is Free - A History of the Founding of The American Republic". I found the book disappointing. However I did find two statements that I'd like the publisher to provide more information on.

On page 165 under The Virginia Plan: "When the states agreed to send delegates to Philadelphia, they did so for 'the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.' However, the very first proposal went far beyond those instructions. It proposed to scrap the articles of Confederation and write a totally new document upon which American government would be based." I'd like to know the original source of that proposal and who made the proposal.

On page 167 under Other Arguments: "Should there be one president or three?" Once again I'd like to know the source.

My main disappointment is with the claims that democracy was the new form of government. It simply is not at all true even though the myth as been perpetuated for about the past ninety years since Roosevelt ordered the Army Field Manuals out of circulation that at that time made clear distinctions between a democracy and a republican form of government.

the 15th -

Continuing - Just replied to a couple answers (to questions stated above) that were sent to me in response to my inquiry. My reply included the following.

I appreciate seeing the Virginia Plan. Although it is clear that new proposal/s are presented I did not see a proposal to specifically "scrap the articles of Confederation" (in whatever terms). Would it be possible to point me directly to that proposal?

In the "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government" at: "Article the Sixth" there is a repeal of "the resolutions of the 23rd of April, 1784" demonstrating that if it is the intention of the Congress to "scrap" legislation that intention gets clearly stated. I also find in the United States Code the inclusion of the Articles of Confederation as one of the four Organic Laws of The United States of America. The Articles don't appear to be scrapped to me.

Page 6 and 7 of your book make mention of democracy as the new form of government yet I do not see any source at all that expresses that as an intention by any of the "Founding Fathers". On the contrary I only see references to the Republic. What is the source for "democracy" as mentioned in the book?

May 16th, 2016 -

An interview - starting with Historical background of "The United States of America" - by the greatest researcher on the Organic American Laws, Dr. Ed Rivera[8][9]

September 17, 2016 -

The "deception" is also known as: "names fraud scheme"[10]

May 1st, 2017 -

Deception is a form of corruption that includes:
"debasement or alteration, as of language or a text.
a debased form of a word."[12]

May 23, 2017 -

AKA "Semantic change"[13]

November 27, 2017 - Defining "Constitution" in contrast with the "Articles of Confederation" -

"...The following is taken from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1887, page 148:

The title of the compact which was made by the thirteen original states [former colonies] of the United States of America.
Immediately it becomes apparent that the Articles was not created directly by the people, but by the states or colonies on behalf of the People. This is a critical point: the states, via the Articles, created the United States of America, not the other way around. Continuing:

2. The full title was, 'Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.' It was adopted and went into force on the first day of March 1781, and remained as the supreme law until the first Wednesday of March 1789 (when the Constitution of the United States of America took effect).

The accompanying analysis of this important instrument is copied from Judge Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, book 2, c. 3.

3. The style of the new confederacy was, by the first article, declared to be, 'The United States of America.' The second article declared that each state retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which was not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in congress assembled. The third article declared that the states for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare; binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. The fourth article declared that the free inhabitants of each of the states (vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted) should be entitled to all the privileges of free citizens in the several states; that the people of each state should have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and should enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties and restrictions as the inhabitants; that fugitives from justice should, upon the demand of the executive of the state from which they fled, be delivered up; and that full faith and credit should be given, in each of the states, to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.

The summarization of the Articles continues for more than a page describing each of the individual articles. However, the portion presented above is enough to give the sense of what was created and by whom.

severally entered into a firm league of friendship with each other,

Since the states formed this 'league of friendship' wherein each state retained its sovereignty, the United States of America is a creature of the states acting for and on behalf of the states, with the blessing of the states. Thus—and let this be clearly understood—the United States of America originally was not created as a country. Each state, a sovereign country equal in status to each other state, limitedly joined with the other states for mutual benefit—without giving up its independence. A confederation does not a country make. On the contrary, the entity created by the Articles is more on the order of a council (an assembly or an advisory body).

During the Civil War, the United States government objected to the southern states seceding from the Union. If in fact each state retained its independence or sovereignty from the other states, and if the United States of America is a creature of the states, by what authority did the Union object to the southern states’ secession? No matter how highly Lincoln valued the 'Union' of states, a servant has no authority to bind the masters. The idea that the federal government forcibly bound the southern states to the Union has bothered (the author) for years.

While there is provision in the Articles that the union should be perpetual, this does not mean that an independent country could not secede from this league of friendship should the people of that state so desire. ]Perpetual' means only that there is no set end date. To suggest otherwise is to argue that the states really had not retained autonomy and independence. Does the Articles stipulate that a state cannot secede? No, but it clearly says that each state maintains its sovereignty and independence.

Constitution -
Let us now refer again to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1887, page 335:

The fundamental law of a free country which characterizes the organism of the country and secures the rights of the citizen and determines his main duties as a freeman.

Wait a minute. I can see why the states, free or sovereign countries, would have constitutions. However, why would the United States of America, a confederation, a collaboration between or a collective of free countries, have a constitu-tion? When did the United States itself become a country? Yes, I know, we all think of the United States of America as a country, but the Articles in no way states or implies that the United States of America is a country. To repeat, the Articles stipulates that it is a “league” of friendship, what amounts to an assembly or an advisory body. Today, however, we are faced with a United States Constitution that is 'the fundamental law of a free country.' Are the hairs on your neck stand- ing up yet?

Continuing with the definition of constitution on page 336:

The Constitution Versus the Articles of Confederation! ... The decrees of the Roman emperors referring to the jus circa sacra [right over holy matters], contained in the Code of Justinian, have been repeatedly collected and called the Constitutions. The famous bull Unigenitus [named for it’s opening words: 'Unigentus dei filius' or 'Only-begotten son of God'] was usually called in France the Constitution. Comprehensive laws or decrees have been called constitutions, thus, the Consitutio Criminalis Carolina, which is the penal code decreed by Charles V. for Germany. In political law the word constitution came to be used more and more for the fundamentals of a government,—the laws and usages which give it its characteristic feature. We find, thus, former English writers speak of the constitution of the Turkish empire. These fundamental laws and customs appeared to our race especially important where they limited the power and action of the different branches of government; and it came thus to pass that by constitution was meant especially the (l)and, as it is equally necessary to guard against the power of the executive in monarchies, a period arrived—namely, the first half of the present century—when in Europe and especially on the continent, the term constitutional government came to be
used in contradistinction to absolutism.

3. We now mean by the term constitution, in common parlance, the fundamental law of a free country which characterizes the organism of the country and secures the rights of the citizen and determines his main duties as a freeman. Sometimes, indeed, the word constitution has been used in recent times for what otherwise is generally called an organic law. Napoleon I. styled himself Emperor of the French by the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Empire.

There is more to this definition, but this will suffice for our purposes.

So, constitutions date back to Rome and are considered comprehensive laws or decrees—of a country. Today, in common parlance, a constitution is considered 'the fundamental law of a free country or state.' Thus, we seem to have a
contradiction between the Articles and the Constitution.

Beyond the obvious, that a constitution has to do with a country, notice that other countries, like France, have constitutions and that the constitution of France was, apparently, one of the constitutions of 'the Empire,' referring to the Roman Empire. Maybe it still is.

Also in paragraph 3 of the quotation: when speaking of a 'free country,' in what sense is 'free' meant? As a country with free or sovereign citizens, or as a country free and independent of other countries? If the latter, how free is free?

Does the idea of empire coincide with that of sovereign citizens? Do the countries of Europe, for instance, have sovereign citizens, or do they have subject-class citizens—or simply subjects?

According to the above definition, a Constitution 'secures the rights of the citizen and determines his main duties as a freeman.' Would a servant 'league of friendship' between countries determine a freeman’s duties?

2. Constitution, as much as decree,— in the former law of the European continent a decree of importance, especially ecclesiastical decrees fundamental law of a state in which the citizen enjoys a high degree of civil liberty.

What kind of country was created by the Constitution? Did the founders (at least those that pushed for a Constitution) contemplate a country that is part of an Empire, or one comparable to the original countries or states of the American Union?

Lastly, if the United States is a country, do the states, which are countries, fit inside of or belong to the United States of America, another country? Does one country rule or encompass all the others? It sounds like a Russian-doll sce- nario, except that instead of dolls of varying sizes, each doll fitting inside of an- other in succession of size, we seem to have thimble-size dolls all fitting together into one foot-tall doll. Does this analogy make any sense? Can a country that is sovereign relative to other countries, with geographical boundaries (land mass) and sovereign citizens, fit into another country having the same? Think about geography (land mass) alone.

Consider: can acorns A, B and C fit into or be a part of Acorn D? Does this work? Why not? It doesn’t work because, at the least, Acorn D would lose its physical integrity as an acorn (in the process of fitting the other acorns into it), or all the acorns would be destroyed in the process. It is functionally impossible. Conceptually, putting one or many countries within another country doesn’t work for somewhat the same reason. Putting a land mass inside another land mass isn’t remotely possible. If the land mass of the United States of America is the District of Columbia, the enclaves and the territories, which are entirely dif- ferent land masses than Arizona or any other Union state (country), can the land mass of Arizona be physically placed inside the District of Columbia, or any other land mass?

So, how does this idea of the many-countries-into-one really work? The many countries would become provinces of (losing their sovereignty in subordination to) the one country, i.e., the land masses of the many are politically sub- sumed by the one, which means the states are no longer countries.

Oh that’s right, the states are Republics that fit into a super Republic. Isn’t that the line? If Republics are countries, this scenario likewise disintegrates. One country cannot subsume another country without their very natures changing. Something would have to give, and I don’t mean in a tit-for-tat sort of way. Some element in that equation would be destroyed, as shown above. Are Republics sovereign countries?

Originally, the United States of America was not intended to be a country, and yet the Constitution, or at least Bouvier’s law Dictionary, 1887 Ed, would lead us to believe that it has become a country."[17]

August 2, 2018 - More Regarding "Free Inhabitant". -

"When a free inhabitant becomes a Citizen of one of the two Unions that free inhabitant suffers a net loss in freedom, which is worse if the non-perpetual Union is picked. The original stated purpose and intent of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 was to make revisions to the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, which would make the administration of the Northwest Territory more efficient. This was, of course, a subterfuge to hide a government power grab led by George Washington and supported by both the States and the federal government. Both the federal and State governments were becoming painfully aware that unless uprisings such as Shays Rebellion were ended permanently and soon every State and local government would be in danger of collapse. In the end the Articles of Confederation were revised by the misrepresentation that the Constitution created a 'more perfect Union' that Union was first created as a not so perfect temporary one by the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787."[39]

December 18, 2017 - an inquiry to the National Archives re: their page (following) on the Articles of Confederation:

"... the Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777. This document served as the United States' first constitution, and was in force from March 1, 1781, until 1789 when the present day Constitution went into effect." I appreciated seeing this statement as it gave me something to respond to.

My inquiry:
I read on your web page[i]: "This document served as the United States' first constitution, and was in force from March 1, 1781, until 1789 when the present day Constitution went into effect."

What was the act of the Continental Congress that apparently terminated the "force" of the Articles of Confederation?

I'm looking forward to hearing from you!

~Chef-doctor Jemichel

Also enjoy just finding: "The 'united States in Congress assembled' came into being 200 years ago with ratification of the Articles of Confederation."[22]

(The number 22 is considered as a "master number" and represents the "Master Builder". If Richard H. Cox is correct in titling his book: "Four Pillars of Constitutionalism" then the "pillar" of the "Articles of Confederation" remains standing in support of the edifice known as the Organic Laws.[23]

The first Organic Law: The Declaration of Independence came "with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence" and that charter also contains one of the most well-known lines of any written work: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..." The second Organic Law: Articles of Confederation" acknowledges: "the Great Governor of the World." Would this the "One" with whom we should acknowledge the "Master Builder" builder status?

David Copperfield created an illusion of the "vanishing and reappearance of the Statue of Liberty". I think a similar illusion was created to make the American people believe that the Articles of Confederation had suddenly "vanished" when the Constitution of September 17, 1787 appeared. From an Organic Law perspective it must be an "illusion" given that there was no "act of Congress" authorizing a Lawful termination of the Articles. Fact is "the Articles" stand in "Volume One of the United States Code which contains the general and permanent laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007) defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787."[23]

"Copperfield explains why he wanted to perform this illusion, saying that his mother Rebecca Kotkin, an immigrant, has been the first person to talk him about the Statue of Liberty, when he was still a child: 'She impressed upon me how precious our liberty is and how easily it can be lost. And then one day it occurred to me that I could show with magic how we take our freedom for granted. Sometimes we don't realize how important something is until it's gone'. So he asked the government for permission to let him make this statue disappear, just for a few minutes. Then he also explains: 'I thought that if we faced emptiness where, for as long as we can remember, that great lady is, lifted up our land, why then... we might imagine what the world would be like without liberty and we realize how precious our freedom really is'. Copperfield also adds: 'Freedom is the true magic. It's beyond the power of any magician'.[24]

January 11, 2018 - Additional terminology to identify the deceptions of government. -

"Weasel-word – a word that has the appearance and feel of meaning one thing while actually meaning something entirely different."

March 17, 2018 - symbolaeography: "This word is frankly defined in 'Black's Law Dictionary', Fifth Edition, as (quote): 'The art or cunning rightly to form and make written instruments.'"

January 15, 2018 - "Why a Sovereign is a King and How You Lost Your Kingdom of God". -

An article offering more under(inner)standing regarding the sovereignty of the Individual.[26]


[1] Article II Section 1 Clause 8.

[2] Article II Section 1 Clause 1.

[3] Article II Section 1 Clause 5.


[5] Acts of Congress are applicable only to the territories that government owns.


[7] Are You Really a "citizen of the United States"?:


[9] "History" depends on who wrote it. There is a contrast between American history as told by the U.S. government and that as seen through the Organic Laws and no one knows this better than Dr. Ed Rivera, a veteran attorney (who at one point oversaw three law firms in Los Angeles) who has postgraduate proficiency in original research in the four Organic Laws of the United States of America.

[10] See: "What Happened to Checks and Balances? —Make the Answer Go Viral":

[11] See the entry at: August 26th, ’16 –









Also see first part of this site:
(and the rest if you are interested in property taxation in Texas).






[25] "Social Security Manual.pdf For living without a SS Number"


[27] Enacted on July 1, 1862.

Scroll down the page to rest of the cite. Includes a link to photocopy of the Statutes at:

[28] “American Literature as World Literature”, pg. 173 (Chapter 8 - Whitman’s Polyvocal Poetic Revolution: Equality and Empire in New World Literature - Gabriel Rockhill) edited by Jeffery R. Di Leo. (Bloomsbury Publishing USA, Dec 28, 2017 - Literary Criticism - 296 pages.)

[29] Book description at books.Google.

[30] From "Democracy - In What State?"

[31] From "Arthur Stopes, III. - Legislative Analyst and Writer (L.A.W.) - Director, Center for Unalienable Rights Education (C.U.R.E.)" in private email.

[32] See:

Part V,
Chapter 115,
and finally to: §1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury."

"Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1) If executed without the United States: 'I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.' Executed on (date). (Signature).

(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: 'I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.' Executed on (date)."

Form (1): "without the United States" - Meaning, the national "United States of America".
Form (2): "within the United States" - Meaning, the federal "United States".
Form (2) may be read as: The "District of Columbia, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths".

[33] From Chapter Two - MAGICIANS in "Fruit From A Poisonous Tree"
Google Search: fruit from a poisonous tree pdf and see:
the third and / or fourth search result:

[PDF]Fruit from a Poisonous Tree - AntiCorruption Society
Fruit from a Poisonous Tree. NEVER WATCH THE HAND BEHIND MY BACK. While researching my first book, High Priests of Treason, I discovered some of the most fascinating information anyone could ever hope to uncover about money, finance and government. I will share it with you so that you have a better ...

[PDF]Fruits from a Poisonous Tree - AntiCorruption Society
CITIZENSHIP REPUDIATION by Melvin Stamper, J.D.. The following are excerpts from attorney Melvin Stamper's book Fruit from a Poisonous Tree. His amazing book represents his research regarding the government of the. UNITED STATES. He responded to his discoveries by repudiating his citizenship. His powerful ...

[34] "Exit From The Matrix: free individual vs Deep State" by Jon Rappoport:

[35] Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM), Form 10.003, Rev. 1-9-2018


[37] From the George Carlin Biography at Genetic

George Carlin - Euphemisms:

[38] The Definitve Book of Human Design, By: Lynda Bunnell and Ra Uru Hu.



[41] Also posted as a comment:




[45] Page 33:

Also see related posts:
"Thirty Little Known Facts about 'America'":


"The Methods Used to Deceive The Nations":


sovereignty, America, Chisholm v. Georgia, the United States, semantic deception, law, legal meaning, Organic Law, Constitution, Common Law, Government, Confederation, jurisdiction, proprietary based, citizenship, Semantic change, us citizen, state, property tax, private property, voter registration, Democracy, observational humor, social commentary, euphemisms, doublespeak, business jargon, federal

Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!

Print this page
Email this page
DISCLAIMER / WARNING   Alert Webmaster

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2022

0.199 sec, (2)

Back to blog!
Add Blog To Favorites!
Add This Entry To Favorites!

Comments (25 of 64):
Re: Ruling - Govt.… Chef-… 30 mon
Re: Ruling - Govt.… snoop… 32 mon
Re: The Anointing #223194 5 y
Re: The Power & Ne… Chef … 5 y
Re: The Power & Ne… TimHo… 5 y
Re: The Power & Ne… TimHo… 5 y
Re: Free DVD to Th… Chef … 5 y
Re: Proper Names W… Chef … 5 y
Re: The Organic La… Chef … 5 y
Re: True Communion Chef J… 5 y
Re: From "Molecule… Chef … 5 y
Re: True Communion r1defo… 6 y
Re: "JFK Assassina… Chef … 7 y
Re: Got Private Pr… trapp… 7 y
Re: The Organic La… pseud… 7 y
Re: Your Emotions … chark… 8 y
Re: JFK Assassinat… #8638… 8 y
Re: What is Healin… missj… 8 y
Re: Got "Common La… kermi… 8 y
Re: Is It Possible… Mixol… 9 y
Re: Up The Creek? … Mixol… 9 y
Re: The Truth of S… Mixol… 9 y
Re: Some Alternati… karlo… 9 y
Re: Proper Names W… Mixol… 9 y
Re: School Shootin… kermi… 9 y
All Comments (64)

Blog Entries (12 of 722):
Free Yourself From All Seman…  6 y
A Primary Obligation Regardi…  6 y
Start Your 2016 (and Each Da…  7 y
"The Healing of God's Son Is…  7 y
New Pain Relief Treatment + …  7 y
To Ascertain the True Meanin…  7 y
The Deeper Meaning In The Ch…  7 y
Getting Clear About Federal …  7 y
The Dead Letter and The Livi…  7 y
A Victory for All Property O…  7 y
The Quick "Within"  7 y
Got Distorted Thinking?  7 y
All Entries (722)

Blogs by Chef JeM (10):
Chef Jemichel ~ The Chef-Doct…  3 mon  (419)
Raw Milk: The Whole Truth  20 mon  (307)
The ’Creme de la Creme’ by Ch…  18 d  (79)
Cheeta: Cultivate Healing Env…  25 mon  (64)
My Enchanted Garden Onion  8 mon  (44)
Psyche & Health  14 mon  (41)
The U-n-I-Verse  27 mon  (34)
The Whey, The Truth and The L…  29 mon  (27)
Evolving Nutritional Awarenes…  5 y  (20)
Original Truth of Self  13 y  (19)

Similar Blogs (10 of 185):
ABCs of Conscious E…  by luckman  48 h
Brain Boot Camp or …  by kerminator  54 d
sylarlucas  by sylarlucas  87 d
Healing Crystals  by pranalink  7 mon
Dreaming a New Real…  by lfire  8 mon
Ya’ think??  by kerminator  9 mon
How Can Astrology H…  by Theastroopd  10 mon
Concerned consumer  by Toolatetoturnbacknow  12 mon
Concerned consumer  by Toolatetoturnbacknow  12 mon
Plant Your Dream!  by YourEnchantedGardener  12 mon
All Blogs (1,019)

Back to blog!

Lugol’s Iodine Free S&H
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine Solution. Restore lost reserves.

Free Remineralizing Tooth Powder!
Best Teeth Remineralization, Strengthening, and Clea...

Kidney Stones Remedy
Hulda Clark Cleanses