Dear Electronic Frontier Foundation, Editor:

Here are the ‘intelligence’ links on  thinkprogress.org site re: Bush regime domestic spying and FISA controversy.

http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Intelligence

One is advised to open the link and visit each of these well-written articles.  The ‘reality’ of how dark the entire Executive surveillance operation is will become immediately apparent, especially in light of the recent statement by current lackey ‘Attorney General’ to Harlan Specter that Bush had not violated the statutes.           

HOWEVER, TAKE NOTICE:

My understanding is that surveillance ‘law’ or ‘policy’ is strictly limited to application and context of ‘foreign-to-foreign’ national security matters.  So, how does that get into the People of the several states of the Republic?

The thing that nobody is getting or talking about is that “foreign” means ‘without the United States’, and that the “United States” was defined by the Supreme Court in the Hooven case of 1945 to have three different legal meanings.  That case is well-settled and has never been overturned.  I would imagine that a search would show it being referenced in numerous other cases since.  Another thing:  The United States is defined under 28 USC 3002 (A-C) as a ‘federal corporation’, agency, or ‘instrumentality’ thereof, while at 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) the United States is defined solely as the District of Columbia.

As the federal legislature within the District of Columbia cannot legislate directly to the People of the several states ‘without the United States’, it has subtly breached the inherent limitations on its authority by legislating indirectly to the People of the several states visa vie the ‘foreign-to-foreign’ foundation for said surveillance.   

The American Union of several states, a Republic, is one of the Hooven definitions, but in other case law, the several states of the Union, aka the United States of America, are clearly also deemed to be ‘without’ and ‘foreign to’ the DoC-“United States”.  These federal cases, then, have determined that depending on definition, the United States may or may not be consistent with the determinations of Hooven, depending on its definition and relevant subject matter.   However, these cases do narrow and are consistent with the Hooven case.  The significance of these facts of law cannot be diminished by making erroneous presumptions that the FISA legislation does not reach into the ‘states’ of the Union, because it does.  And, I would also suggest that these seemingly obscure facts is/are a matter of ‘legal memory’ of the ‘nation’ as well as the federal government, ie. District of Columbia and the federal CORPORATION domiciled therein, a distinctly diverse and ‘foreign state’ to the United States of America.

The several de jure republic ‘states’ or are ‘foreign to’ the District of Columbia and the federal corporation, which operates as a legislatively created [by Charter of Congress] municipality having federal territories.   The People thereof are not subject to or of the Article II or Article IV ‘laws of the United States’ but are subject to/of Article III judicial authority thereof.  The federalized ‘States of’ the “United States” all have mostly uniform ‘laws’, uniform ‘federal character’, Federal Tax or Employer Identification Numbers (as do all their political subdivisions and municipalities), and all are incorporated instrumentalities ‘sub-jurisdictions of the United States’.  We have letters from the State of North Carolina Department of State asserting and affirming this fact.  So, there is no ‘division of powers’, diversity of sovereignty, or distinction between the federal ‘States’ and the “United States”, as they are clearly under and within the jurisdiction-authority-law of the District of Columbia.  Each has a corporate domicile within the District of Columbia, and each makes its jurisdiction laws ‘uniform’ and consistent with the District of Columbia Code. 

As such, when any real man or woman first becomes a ‘citizen’ or ‘resident’ of any of these States, usually by being entered onto the commercial ‘registry’ of the State Department of Health at “berth”, they are instantly traversed or contra-verted as to status and domicile into a ‘foreign state’ than that where they were intended to land at “birth”.  A ‘traverse’ is a form of ‘transfer’ or ‘conveyance’ upon some act, which is a commercial transaction.  Hence, the real man/woman, gives rise to a ‘constructive event’ at ‘berth’ when registered by his parents, due to their contracting with the federal State or its parent company, “United States”.  The significance of this is staggering, and little known or understood.  What would your political-legal status be if you had never been ‘registered’?  You might be called a ‘freeman’.  Think about it. 

In furtherance of this color of ‘contract’ commercial operation, when one is either assigned [and “accepts”] or ‘applies’ [by ‘voluntary election’, even if “induced”] and ‘accepts’ to be assigned a ‘Social Security Number’, one has contracted for federal retirement benefits, usually having a ‘deferred benefit’ significance to the applicant to begin at age 62 or 65, whatever.  The fact that one has apparently applied, gives the impression and appearance of a ‘voluntary election’, which goes directly to the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE as cause for the ‘United States’ to presume that your act was informed, consensual, and made subject to all the laws of the ‘United States’.  This would include the federal income tax, and virtually every other form of law and/or law making on the books of the ‘federal’ territorial corporate ‘government’, which went into bankruptcy under HJR-192, June 5, 1933.  This was then affirmed and verified in Senate Document 43, June 11, 1933 after Executive Order 6166, June 10, 1933 [see all of the Appended Executive Orders at the bottom of 6166, which are further appended to the Administrative Procedures Act, 1934, as ‘Title 5, USC’]  

There is NO LAW which can compel any parent to ‘register’ their children with the federal STATE, nor is there any law which can compel any one to be a Social Security applicant, or alleged ‘beneficiary’ or ‘holder’ of any federal entitlement.  The entire System is strictly voluntary and operates as a matter of commerce driven by signature.  But, try operating in that System without a Birth Certificate or ‘Certification of Live Birth’, or a Social Security Card/Account.

The Social Security card, NAME, Number, and Account, are all creations of the United States, and remain its sole and exclusive property at all times, and may be rescinded or recalled at any time at its sole discretion.   Just read the back of any Card. The owner’s name and rights are set forth in black/white print.  So, who and what is the status, standing, and capacity of the man/woman who is the executor or signatory on the Card when received-accepted?  Is that man one/same as the named ‘ident’ ‘U.S. person’ and ‘BENEFICIARY’ who’s ‘NAME’ is spelled in ALL CAP LETTERS on the face of the card?

All of this and more is a matter of fact arising from the federal [not ‘national’] bankruptcy of the United States in 1933, and various post-1933 federal and State legislation, including the Foreign Trade Zone Act of 1934, which provides for the creation of federal foreign trade zones.  Such incorporated entities exist and operate “within the United States” subject to its exclusive jurisdiction and laws thereof. 

The American People had to be converted to and harnessed as a form of “faith and credit” whereby to collateralize and ‘administrate’ the federal bankruptcy for the benefit of its Creditors under ‘reorganization’ Chapter 11 proceedings.  All of the American People were in-fact induced to ‘register’ their ‘real property’, which under the much older slave laws of the States of the ‘Confederacy’, ‘registration’ included those flesh and blood offspring of natural born parents who were at the time deemed to be slaves of their ‘master-owners’.  Registration, being ‘voluntary’, or made to appear as such, essentially created a new ‘state’ of ‘voluntary servitude’ to replace the prohibitions against ‘involuntary servitude’ by virtue of the 13^th Amendment.   American nationals who enjoyed Constitutionally protections and ‘reservation of rights’ under the Bill of Rights, which protections and reservations were deemed derived from the Creator-Creation and not by any government or act of man, are for those Citizens within the United States of America.  Are those protections and reservations applicable to ‘citizens of the United States’?  NO!  Federal case law has born this out.

Hence, the FISA issue, and surveillance of ‘Americans’ in general or in particular, must be linked to the related issues and understanding of the status, standing, capacity, and political-legal domicile and jurisdiction of those that are generally [presumptively] referred to as ‘American Citizens’. 

There are few actual  ‘American Citizens’ today.  In fact, the government [Congress] determined years ago that there were none.  Although contrary to the ‘preponderance of evidence to the contrary’, the United States apparat, including its alleged ‘courts of record’ assert and uphold that there are no such state national “Citizens” and that everyone engaged in any controversy with the United States, by its laws, is deemed to be a ‘U.S. citizen’ and/or subject to the jurisdiction and authority of the United States, its territories, and courts thereof.    Although there exists federal case law and statute which affirms otherwise, being that the United States and no court thereof has authority to compel association or legal-political [free will choice] of any man, as a matter of executive, legislative, and judicial ‘policy’ and the ‘administrative authority of law’ thereof, denial of national identity and ‘nativity’ status as one who is ‘on’ the soil of any of the republic [several] states, is set by policy as a fixed continuous practice. 

And, by the way, it is a matter of Supreme Court judicial record, “United States Distict Courts” do not have Article III capacity, nor are they capable of receiving or holding such capacity.  Nor are the Judges thereof Article III Judges having or holding the ‘judicial authority of the United States’ under Article III of the Organic Constitution for the United States of America and People and states thereof.  This is a fact of law from the legal memory of the nation and can be verified easily.

As a matter of fact, law, and commerce, everyone is de facto deemed to be a ‘U.S. citizen’, which has no absolute rights other than to ‘residency within the United States’.  Now, go figure what ‘residency’ means.  If you want some help with the ‘law of it’, please contact me and I will send you the resource links to clarify the subject.

A  “U.S. citizen’’ or ‘citizen of the United States’ is not the same nor can (it) ever be ‘identified’ as or on par with the status, standing, capacity, jurisdiction, or domicile of an American national.  Said another way, a ‘state national of the American [republic] Union, aka, United States of America, is a ‘real man’, a flesh and blood mortal man/woman.  The real man is not one who is deemed to exist, abide, or be “domiciled” ‘within the United States’, unless by birth, naturalization, or ‘voluntary election’.   “Voluntary election” may be made for one by action at birth/berth of one’s parents, which by design and intent results in ‘registration’.   In the latter case, voluntary election may not be, nor is rarely ever,  by any obvious, informed, or consensual act.  Election may be by the underlying ‘voluntary intent’ to procure federal ‘entitlements’ or ‘benefits’, which are ‘applied for’; it may be and most always is by obfuscation, inducement, coercion, compellation, presumption, and ignorance of the material facts.

One critical material fact is:  Title 5, USC, Administrative Procedures Act, and all other ‘federal’ territorial ‘statutes’ and ‘regulation’ [‘administrative law’] was/are never intended to include, nor could include, natural persons born ‘without the United States’ on the soil of the several states, being ‘within the United States of America’.  [see 28 USC, 1746 (1) and (2)]  Federal benefits are by design and intent of Congress, for “employees” and “officers” or “officials” of the United States, a federal corporation domiciled within the District.  Federal ‘entitlement’, including Social Security retirement benefits, were never nor even now, legally intended to be for “non-resident aliens” to the United States who were in/on/of the several states of American union, unless of course, they would in an informed manner and by ‘consent’, then voluntarily ‘elect’ to be treated as a ‘resident’ or ‘resident alien’ of the District of Columbia, which then, would mean that their ‘election’ would bring them under jurisdiction and law authority of the federal CORPORATION, ie. “United States”.  So how does one legally qualify for Social Security if one is not born within the District of Columbia or knowingly have naturalized into it?  Remember, Social Security is only for federal employees and officers.  What kind of action would one born within any one of the several states have to take in order, then, to become a federal employee or officer?  Has that, in fact, ever occurred as a matter of law for most everyone having signed up for Social Security who was not born within the District of Columbia or any federal territory, or ever been ‘employed’ by the United States?

American Citizens or nationals of the United States of America are not the same as a commercial franchise legal fiction ‘U.S. person’, “res ident”, ‘individual’, which may be known, presumed, or claimed to be a U.S. Administrative Agency, ‘Estate’, ‘Transmitting Utility’, ‘Vessel’, ‘Vehicle’, or a ‘Beneficiary’ or ‘Recipient’ of federal [retirement benefits, per 5 USC 552 a(a)(13)] of the United States’ ‘public trust’, which operates today by ‘public policy’ ‘administrated’ under the ‘statutory-administrative scheme’, and which goes back to Title 5, USC.  Federal case law bears this out.   The United States Code provides that ‘natural persons’ are within the definition of a U.S. ‘citizen’, and are included with a “corporation”.  Do corporations have Constitutionally protected inalienable or Vested Rights, or enjoy the Bill of Rights?  I don’t think so.

They are treated as having only ‘civil rights’ or privileges, granted by action of the CORPORATE STATE.  Said ‘rights’ are not the same or on par with Vested Inalienable or Constitutionally protected Rights set forth under the Bill of Rights as amended to the Organic Constitution for the United States of America, which is not the same or on par with the ‘federal constitution’ ‘adopted’ by Congress at the ‘incorporation of the District of Columbia’ and ‘United States’, wherein the adopted constitution was made by resolution within the corporate charter as a by-law.

In summary, if true American Citizens who are real flesh and blood men/women on the soil of the American states of the Union can be surveilled because they, as a matter of any of these draconian statutes bearing on ‘national security’, are ‘foreign to’ and ‘without the United States’ [by Hooven definition], then Congress certainly knows this to be an indirect attack, as a matter of grave concern, on the Sovereign status of the American People and their Constitutionally protected Bill of Rights.  This protection does not, however, extend to nor support any ‘person’, defined within the Statutes of Congress or Executive Orders of the President.  The Bill of Rights is reserved for persons within the United States of America only, and does not apply to anyone falling under 14^th Amendment status.  ALL ‘persons’ registered at berth/birth with any federally incorporated ‘State of’ the United States are deemed to be subject to/of the 14^th Amendment, and have only civil rights as a result.  They are not protected under any of the previous Amendments I-X.

If you call the  U.S. Department of State, Office of Legal Counsel, and ask them about the significance of a ‘Birth Certificate’ or ‘registration’ in relation to the presumed status of the registered person and the 14^th Amendment, if they are consistent with what they have told us in the recent past, they will state that the registered person is deemed to be subject to/of  the 14^th Amendment and is a ‘U.S. citizen’ thereof.  THAT MEANS, “no Constitutionally protected [Bill of] Rights”, only relative rights granted by Congress and the Executive within the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, including the ‘right’ and ‘duty’ to pay federal ‘individual’ income taxes.

S