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/
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