Re: APFN...RE: NSPD-51Wed Jun 13, 2007 13:41National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51. HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20. Subject: National Continuity Policy. Purpose ...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: APFN...RE: NSPD-51
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:48:16 +0000
From: Legal Reality firstname.lastname@example.org
CC: *NLP Wesser email@example.com , "Cong. Ron Paul" firstname.lastname@example.org , Dave Lindorff email@example.com , Devvy Kidd firstname.lastname@example.org
13 June A.D. 2007
Thanks for the note.
We're so far removed in our intellectual awareness from our legal reality that starting at this point, i.e., addressing National Security Presidential Directive 51, is starting way, way, way downstream.
However, it doesn't really matter how far downstream we are, if we have the right ship and the right crew.
So, let's start back at the stream that starts as the overflow from the lake at the top of the Mountain, which stream eventually becomes the mouth of that river, and see what The Lord has in mind with this particular exchange.
To solve a problem, we must first identify it correctly.
What I'll do here is identify the problem, at the "law of man" level. This presentation is not really suited for "public consumption." A public presentation would likely do well to steer clear from so direct an analysis. And, even this one is not as direct as it could be. But, until we have clearly in mind what we're dealing with, we're spinning our wheels in the mud, creating a huge mess, and getting nowhere really quickly, consuming what energy we have left.
The first and foremost point to realize is that "We are not in Kansas," right now.
What does the "funny money" system tell us about our "choice of law?"
One of the most obvious points of evidence that we're not in the place that we're otherwise led to believe that we're in is the money system.
As we reflect on and focus on the "funny money" system, you have my permission to ask yourself this question. If all these people, who have properly and competently exposed the "funny money" system for what it is, really believed what they wrote, why do they trade their books and materials for "funny money" instead of Money? To date, there are very few published discussions that include proper treatment of the "funny money" system that are also available for trade with Money.
In reference to "places," what I'm talking about is the "choice of law." There are generically two "places" from which to select: (1) the Land, and (2) everywhere else, which is basically (A) the water and (B) the air. If we were "on the Land," then the default "choice of law" would be "the Law of the Land." And, because we're not "on the Land," the default "choice of law" is (2) admiralty-maritime, i.e., "the Law of the Sea."
There's so much information to cover here that if there's interest in further discussion on this, we can certainly do that. Just to introduce the main concept, here's the fundamental reality. IF we were "on the Land," THEN the Money would have to be gold and silver Coin, which are simply the common examples of a honest system of weights and measures. Run the contrapositive on this and we're quickly into the proof that we're not dealing with "the Law of the Land." Heres' the contrapositive: Where the Money is not gold and silver Coin, the place is not the Land.
The "funny money" system cannot be run under "the Law of the Land," which is also known as the Common Law. Under the Common Law, the "funny money' system would be, at best, fraud. It's actually worse than that. Under the Common Law, the "funny money" system instantly announces itself as "giving Aid and Comfort" to the enemies of the people. But, we don't have to "go there" in order to understand that the "funny money" system cannot function lawfully under "the Law of the Land."
Therefore, there must be another "place" at issue, a "place" where it IS "lawful" to run the "funny money" scam.
And, the name of that other "place" is called "this state." We find this phrase, namely "this state," in the state codes, where it has been presumed to mean and refer to that particular geographic area, e.g., Texas. But, "this state" in absolutely, positively no stretch of the imagination has that meaning.
Let's first look at "this state" in the theoretical model, and then let's see how "this state" works in practice. In theory, "this state" is a Constitution-free, maritime commercial zone. It's a construct of the "law," and here is the most generic way to look at "this state." Texas has 254 Counties. The place called "this state" has 50-something "counties." Texas is a geographic expanse with a defined and geometrically "closed" boundary (physical, on the Land, line of demarcation) and border (legal recognition of that boundary). The place called "this state" has no boundary and no border. Texas is a state. Per the Buck Act, as just one example of many, the place called "TX" is a "federal area." I also refer to the "federal areas" as "federal zones." Thus, "TX" is a "federal zone." To repeat, Texas is a state, and TX is a federal zone.
To expand upon this, NM, OK, AR, and LA, are also federal zones.
With that in mind, consider these federal zones as "counties" of "this state." The capital of "this state" is DC.
Here, then, is a conceptualization of the place called "this state." This intends to describe in "concrete" terms the abstract idea of the legal construct of the "place" called "this state." Take all 48 contiguous states, plus Alaska, Hawaii, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and etc., to include the "territories" and "protectorates." Now, above that entire expanse of land, picture a clear acrylic sheet hovering at 25 feet above the land. There's nothing magic about the 25 feet. It's just that to see something 25 feet in the air, we typically have to look up, which means we're no longer looking at the ground, which is the entire point of this conceptualization exercise. If we can "see" that clear acrylic sheet hovering in the air 25 feet above that expanse of land, then we can "see" the place called "this state."
Why do I describe it this way? Let's review the "choice of law" question. Either we're dealing with "the Law of the Land" or else we're dealing with "the Law of the Sea." Some, even some jurists, will say that "the Law of the Sea" has been brought onto the Land. This is, of course, legal non-sense, for such is a legal impossibility. However, where there is another "place," a legal construct, something fully recognized at law that doesn't have to exist physically, in exactly the same way that corporations exist in the eyes of the law but don't exist physically, and where that place exists either (A) on the water or (B) in the air, then the "choice of law" may be "the Law of the Sea" and yet none of that Law "has been brought onto the Land."
Also, keep in mind that the key item of evidence that there must exist another "place" is the "funny money." Since "funny money" circulates, and since no one is going to jail for that activity, there MUST be another "place," a place other than "the Land," in which that commercial activity is taking place, "in the eyes of the law." Thus, our first objective, then, is to understand WHY no one is going to jail for fraud, and now we have satisfied ourselves as to how the "funny money" system runs the way it does. It's not running "on the Land," but rather in a different place, the place called "this state." Since "this state" exists in the "place" for which the default "choice of law" is admiralty-maritime, then whatever may be agreed to is perfectly lawful in that "place." So, I describe "this state" as a "hover zone" in order to describe in "concrete" terms the reality that (1) there must be another "place," or else there is no explanation of why no one is going to jail for running the "funny money" system, and (2) that "place" cannot be subject to "the Law of the Land," or else the people running the "funny money" system would be going to jail for fraud, and worse. The "hover zone" satisfies all of the facts.
That's a brief but complete overview of the discussion of the model. Now, let's apply this model, which distinguishes Texas and TX, the one being a state and the other a "county" within "this state," to the understanding of what is popularly called the "long arm statutes." So, to see "this state" in action, let's look at one particular Supreme Court case. In Pennoyer v. Neff, the focus is on the effectiveness of the Service of Process. That Service was not made in the state in which that state court was found. Therefore, the Court teach us that such Service is ineffective, thereby confirming that a state has limits, one of which is geographic. Where the state has geographic limits, the courts in and of that state have geographic limits. Thus, Service beyond those geographic limits is without authority. And, all of this seems fairly intuitive and substantially in line with common sense.
Now, let's look at a so-called "long arm statute." To make the point most clearly, let's say that Joe, an inhabitant of California, files suit in California against Sue who is an inhabitant of New York. Can Joe lawfully Serve Sue outside of California? No. Why not? Pennoyer v. Neff. NOW, let's say that JOE, a resident of CA, files suit in CA against SUE, who is a resident of NY. Can JOE lawfully Serve SUE outside of CA? YES! How?! This is the "magic" of "this state." You see, in "this state," CA and NY are just "counties." So, going across the "border" of CA is nothing more than crossing a "county line," not the "state line" of "this state." So, in this second fact pattern, Service is perfectly lawful.
Let's take yet another example that is absolutely real and considerably closer to home. Let's say that there are bombs placed inside a federal building in Oklahoma City, in order that Iran/Contra investigation records and Mena, Arkansas drug trafficking investigation records may be destroyed, under the disguise of a "terrorist" attack, whether that is to be blamed on "locals" or "foreign nationals." And, let's say that the patsies of that massacre are charged in Oklahoma. Can that criminal case be "exported" across the State line to any other State, say, Colorado? No. Why not? Art. III, § 2, Art. IV, § 2, and the Sixth Amendment. BUT, NOW, let's say that the PATSIES of that massacre are charged in OK. Can THAT criminal case be "transferred" across that "county" line into a neighboring "county," say, CO? Sure! How can that be? Again, this is the "magic" of "this state."
Those who are interested in seeing the real-time judicial treatment of the legal issues raised under Art. III, § 2, Art. IV, § 2, and the Sixth Amendment, as well as the other issues raised in that case, are invited to read them. They may be found here:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_coverup.htm (search that page for "Taylor," and you'll be at the top of the links to those .pdf files.)
At the end of The Terre Haute Litigation, what the 7th Circuit taught me was this. Our 100%, pure, "constitutional" case was (A) frivolous, (B) without merit, (C) of no authority, and (D) ludicrous. Keep firmly in mind that what we argued in that case was nothing but the Constitution, the court's rules on discovery, and the Common Law of Evidence. There is considerably more to discuss about that litigation, but that can wait for questions at a future tine.
IF the Constitution were the basis for this thing that calls itself the "federal government," THEN what we're seeing with this "long-arm statute" activity and with the transfer of the criminal case regarding the Oklahoma City Bombing would be legally impossible. Thus, broadening this conclusion per deductive reasoning (for which there are thousands and thousands more examples possible to discuss) IF we were dealing with "the Law of the Land," THEN nothing that we see going on under the label of "federal government" would be possible.
But, the vast majority of the "federal government" activities are upheld judicially. So, how can that be? The answer is found in understanding the existence of, and the operational mechanism of, the place called "this state."
Let's make a direct connection with NSPD 51 at this juncture. NSPD has nothing to do with "the Law of the Land." Instead, it has everything to do with the "law" of the place called "this state." So, whatever may be perceived as a "power grab," that "power grab" exists solely within "this state." In other words, such "power grab" will affect only THOSE who have self-identified themselves as RESIDENTS within "this state," and who have also politically (religiously) aligned themselves with the "federal government." There's a little bit more to it than this, but there's a LOT more to this discussion that we'll need to address before the full impact of the ideas discussed in this "mere introduction" may be recognized in their horrific reality.
Let's also address, again, the question that got this part of this discussion started. What does the "funny money" system tell us about the "choice of law?" The "funny money' system is, without question, the "best evidence" that some other "place" exists, in the eyes of the law. Let's describe that place in still a different way, in order that we see, again, that we are not in Kansas, right now. Picture the body politic we call Great Britain. Now, picture that body politic on a huge barge anchored in the middle of the Rhine River in Germany. That barge may be equated with "this state." Thus, what the mere existence of the "funny money" system tells us is that we are not under "the Law of the Land," but rather are operating in a Constitution-free, maritime, commercial zone.
To understand this part of our legal reality is to understand the most substantial part of the problem.
Let's continue with our realization that we are not in Kansas, right now, with this next thought.
"Federal" means "federal." What does this tell us about our "choice of law?"
"Federal" means "federal." "Federal" does not mean "national." And, "federal" most certainly does not mean "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal." At the level of a state, where we'd ordinarily consider a body politic, "federal" means "by compact," or "by treaty." However, at the level of the individual, which is a concept that very, very few of the dictionary writers even contemplate, "federal" means "by private obligation."
So, they've been telling us who they are, where they are, and how they operate, all of our lives. We've simply chosen to believe a set of myths rather than the legal reality.
To complete this thought, there are two types of private obligations: contracts and trusts. As a hint for future discussions, let me add that it is legally impossible for someone to be jailed for "willful breach of contract," but it is definitely possible for someone to be jailed for "willful breach of trust." The latter is sometimes called embezzlement. The Texas Penal Code comes a little bit closer to identifying the problem with §§ 32.43 and 32.45, which specifically identify the criminal enforcement possible against fiduciary's who willfully abuse that office, which office cannot be entered any way other than purely voluntarily.
Thus, the point to make here about the "choice of law" is that any act of adopting the "law" of the place called "this state" is done purely voluntarily, and at the threshold of the commercial agreement. What the Supreme Court teach us in Ogden v. Saunders is that the "choice of law" is embodied in the agreement, itself. So, where we unknowingly enter into these various agreements, we also unknowingly buy into the "choice of law" of the place called "this state."
We're not really even started good, yet.
This will be adequate for a starting place. If this has piqued the interest of those wh
- (Cont'd....We're not really even started good, yet. Harmon L. Taylor, Wed Jun 13 13:45
Main Page - Monday, 06/18/07
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES