Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

The State...This State... Is there a difference?

What's a "Freeman"? What does "Sui Juris" mean?

The State...This State... Is there a difference?

Postby country_hick » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:56 pm

https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/the-states-of-the-union-vs-the-territory/
The States of the Union vs. the Territory

I embrace the fantastic hypothesis that the federal government has created a second, alternative set of “states” that are, in fact, administrative districts of a “territory” rather than States of the Union. In essence, this “State-vs-territory” hypothesis argues that “TX” is a territory while “The State of Texas” is a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. Whichever of these venues (territory or State of the Union) that you inhabit will determine your rights, your duties, your taxes, your liabilities to arbitrary, unlimited government or your liberty within a limited government.

I strongly suspect that the key to the State-vs-territory hypothesis is Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States which declares in part: “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”Note that this prohibition applies only the States of the Union (“No State shall . . . .). Only the States of the Union were then (and now) prohibited from making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. The Constitution offers no similar prohibition on currencies issued or used by the federal government, Washington DC, or the territories.

https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/bond-vs-u-s/ (comment)
The THEORY that “this state” is a territory of the United States while “The State” is one of the States of the Union and thus one of The United States of America. If that theory is correct, then the federal laws are absolutely valid and constitutional (under Article 4.3.2 of The Constitution of the United States) within the venue of “this state”. Those same federal laws, however, may be unconstitutional when applied to you IF you can establish that your venue is within The State of Texas (rather than TX, STATE OF TEXAS, “this state,” etc.).

Establishing your venue to be within The State of Texas (of the Union) rather than “in this state” may be difficult in that you’ve already submitted to some of the laws of “this state” by paying your child support, etc.. The system will presume from your previous conduct that you have voluntarily entered into “this state” and must therefore be held accountable under the laws of “this state”. Assuming this theory is roughly correct, you would probably have to go back to your earliest signatures in relation to your marriage relationship and subsequent divorce to establish that you never knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally left The State of Texas to enter into some territorial venue; that you never knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally abandoned your status as one of the People of The State of Texas to become one of the subjects or even “animals” of “this state”.


At first I thought this idea was absolutely nuts. States must be States not territories. States once they become States must so remain right? Then I read Maine law that defines State as a territory but not as a State.

http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/1/title1sec72.html
Title 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
Chapter 3: RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
§72. Words and phrases
21. State. "State," used with reference to any organized portion of the United States, may mean a territory or the District of Columbia.
26-A. United States. "United States" includes territories and the District of Columbia.

http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/1/title1sec1.html
Title 1 General Provisions
§1. Extent of sovereignty and jurisdiction

The jurisdiction and sovereignty of the State extend to all places within its boundaries, subject only to such rights of concurrent jurisdiction as are granted by the State over places ceded by the State to the United States. This section shall not limit or restrict the jurisdiction of the State over any person or with respect to any subject, within or without its boundaries, which jurisdiction is exercisable by reason of citizenship, residence or for any other reason recognized by law.

Title 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
Chapter 1: SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION
§4. Certain jurisdiction and ownership unimpaired

1. Jurisdiction because of citizenship; residence. The jurisdiction of this State over any person or with respect to any subject within or without the State which jurisdiction is exercisable by reason of citizenship, residence or for any other reason recognized by law;

2. Jurisdiction over certain waters and land; ceded to and owned by United States. Jurisdiction or ownership of or over any other waters or lands thereunder, within or forming part of the boundaries of this State. Nor shall anything in sections 2 to 5 be construed to impair the exercise of legislative jurisdiction by the United States of America over any area to which such jurisdiction has been validly ceded by this State and which remains in the ownership of the United States of America.

Are you confused yet? I think I am.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 49 time

 

Re: The State...This State... Is there a difference?

Postby palani » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:08 pm

country_hick wrote:Are you confused yet? I think I am.

My YEAs are YEAs and my NAYs are NAYs. Therefore when confronted with conflicting views what I say is final except where necessity intervenes.

'The State'? 'This State'? The difference is
1) order introduced
2) difference between The and This

the
definite article, late Old English þe, nominative masculine form of the demonstrative pronoun and adjective.


this (pron.)
Old English þis, neuter demonstrative pronoun and adjective (masc. þes, fem. þeos), probably from a North Sea Germanic pronoun *tha-si-,


Hence my determination is that The State is predominantly the masculine form represented by masculine Law (also goes by the moniker 'common law') .

'This State' is the neutered form of The State, popular amongst transgender and feminine folks, represented by Unisex clothing, males that shave and have pedicures and who insist upon feminine law known as EQUITY, dykes and other female forms of male impersonators (ref The Merchant of Venice).

As to order ... doesn't it depend upon whether you start reading from the front of the book or the rear?

Hope this helps you in your struggle to be less neutered.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5793
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 167 time
Have thanks: 478 time

Re: The State...This State... Is there a difference?

Postby Jethro! » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:56 pm

The meaning of words depends on who is uttering them. For example my "this state" could mean something entirely different than your "this state" vs. someone else's "this state". Why not ask -- a.k.a. obtaining sufficient notice -- the utterer what means by it?
Jethro!
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 216 time
Have thanks: 186 time

Re: The State...This State... Is there a difference?

Postby country_hick » Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:04 pm

The 1805 case below says that we do not have states. States are not states as states were defined by the law of nations. The quote says that states cease to be actual states after they joined the union. I have no idea how a State as defined by the law of nations could be something different after joining a confederation (like NATO) but the court says that happened.

Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 US 445 – Supreme Court 1805
“the word state is used in the constitution as designating a member of the union, and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations.”

When the same term which has been used plainly in this limited sense in the articles respecting the legislative and executive departments, is also employed in that which respects the judicial department, it must be understood as retaining the sense originally given to it.

I do not know what states are.

Apparently even the State says it is not a state. From Maine Title 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
Chapter 3: RULES OF CONSTRUCTION §72. Words and phrases
http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/1/title1sec72.html

21. State. “State,” used with reference to any organized portion of the United States, may mean a territory or the District of Columbia.
(and)
26-A. United States. “United States” includes territories and the District of Columbia.
(Notice that United States does NOT include any states. We must not have states.)

The complete 1805 case is to be found below.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5321836890037975507&q=Hepburn+v.+Ellzey,+6+US+445+-+Supreme+Court+1805&hl=en&as_sdt=10000006
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 49 time

Re: The State...This State... Is there a difference?

Postby palani » Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:23 pm

country_hick wrote:I do not know what states are.

A state is a singular affair. States is a plural concept encompassing multiple singular state.

Any man will tell you he does not understand women. Women is a plural concept and might be how multiple singular woman interact. Far more important is it to understand a single woman than many women. I doubt if any singular man can entertain relations with multiple women for any period of time so his level of understanding of them is irrelevant. The same topic applies to any woman who claims to not understand men. [This concept of the importance of singular vs plural is an important principle of law described in Lombard's Eirenarcha, in England for 30 years statutes were composed for COUNTIES (in the plural) yet no such entity existed so much legislation had to be changed to read the several COUNTIES or to enumerate each one.]

Where are we going with this? When you talk 'states' you comprehend the relationships between singular states rather than what a singular state is composed of (aka 'definition'). That relationship between these singular state entities that otherwise would be foreign to each other is called the constitution of a federation/confederation. This document is what defines how these singular state entities play with each other and is what makes them termed 'states' as opposed to 'state'.

Now on to state. A state is composed of multiple singular counties. A county is composed of cities, villages and townships (plantations in that Maine definition page you gave). A city is a municipality which by law may have territory attached. A city without territory is similar to the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin (either a whole lot or non at all). All cities claim territory. The territory might be enclosed or simply proclaimed. A state is a municipality in that it has a CAPITAL city. The law of a state is called it's MUNICIPAL LAW. The territory of a state is the territory attached to the CAPITAL city. All law is municipal law [except perhaps that law which is NATURAL or DECLARED or of NECESSITY].

Now that we have discussed what a state is composed of take another look and examine what it is NOT composed of, namely PEOPLE. There in not a single blessed people (plural or singular) in any of the several States, their counties, their cities, their villages or all of them combined into a whole calling itself THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. There might be residents or inhabitants, citizens, officers, et al but not a single people (OR a multiple people for that matter) in the bunch.

Now that we know what a state is we might as well consider what a BANKRUPT state is. That would be every one of 'em who base their existence on cashflow, capitalism, communism, welfare or mercantilism. BANKRUPT is an adjective that reduces the population under consideration. There can be no more BANKRUPT states than there are STATES but the number of each set might be equal in which case the number of NON-BANKRUPT states would be the null set.

Now there are those who believe that claiming a BANKRUPT state to be a citizen of is required to participate in gentle society. Claiming to be the asset of any entity that is BANKRUPT imparts the same state to the one doing the claiming. As this site is all about sui juris status be aware that this status is not available to anyone attainted with BANKRUPTCY.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5793
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 167 time
Have thanks: 478 time

Re: The State...This State... Is there a difference?

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:39 pm

I am in the state that I was born in,,,and if I ever leave that state I will be dead.

I was once asked in a "traffic stop" and one of the costume wearers asked me if I lived in my truck.

I told him that if what he was asking were true then I would be a truck. :headbang:

I an mostly liquid, some solid and sometimes gas...If I ever leave this state then I will be in some other state than the one I was born in,,,,my body
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... b3c912fb94
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 127 time
Have thanks: 55 time

Re: The State...This State... Is there a difference?

Postby palani » Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:33 pm

Nunya_Bizness wrote:one of the costume wearers asked me if I lived in my truck

The first night you slept there as a stranger, the next night you stayed as a guest and every time after that you were aghenhine.

Or maybe you could claim levant et couchant?
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5793
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 167 time
Have thanks: 478 time

Re: The State...This State... Is there a difference?

Postby Steve_Lujack » Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:48 pm

this STATE ...
IS A ADMINISTRATIVE VENUE
User avatar
Steve_Lujack
Sovereign Dei Gratia
 
Posts: 3204
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 650 time
Have thanks: 228 time

Re: The State...This State... Is there a difference?

Postby country_hick » Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:21 pm

Does this mean states can not become territories?

Alden v. Maine, 527 US 706 - Supreme Court 1999
The leading advocates of the Constitution assured the people in no uncertain terms that the Constitution would not strip the States of sovereign immunity. One assurance was contained in The Federalist No. 20, at 138 (J. Madison and A. Hamilton); James Iredell: Some 715*715 Objections to the Constitution Answered, reprinted in 3 Annals of America 249(1976).The States thus retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority, of sovereignty.



The Federalist No. 81, written by Alexander Hamilton: "It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent.

Did you consent for your state to become anything less than a state?
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 49 time


Return to Words & Terms defined

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred