The Three United States

April 19, 2018

So I'm sure by now you are familiar with the "United States", but what do you realy know about it, and are you aware that there are actually (3), yes, that's right, 3 states of  the "United States" I will explain below. Before figuring out who you are i.e. a citizen of..?... or a national...?... the Codes to do so seem very confusing. But look at this like this: Few Americans realize that There are three definitions for the "United States". Most have been misled to believe that the term "United States" has a single meaning, this is absolutely not the case and here is why:


1. You have the sovereign States. 50 States of the Union.


2. You have the sovereign Federal government.


3. You have the municipal Federal government, for example in Washington D.C.


Think about this question, Does someone born on Washington D.C. have the same rights as someone born on one of the 50 individual states? Do your research and you may be surprised to find out the facts.


A handy matrix was developed to organize the key terms which define the concepts of status and jurisdiction as they apply to federal income taxation. In particular, an alien is any individual who is not a citizen of the “United States**”. The term “citizen” has a specific legal meaning in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) which promulgate the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”):


Every person born or naturalized in the United States** and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.


[26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added]

What, then, is meant by the term “United States” and what is meant by the phrase “its jurisdiction”? In this regulation, is the term “United States” a singular phrase, a plural phrase, or is it both?


The astute reader has already noticed that an important clue is given by regulations which utilize the phrase “its jurisdiction”. The term “United States” in this regulation must be a singular phrase, otherwise the regulation would need to utilize the phrase “their jurisdiction” or “their jurisdictions” to be grammatically correct.


As early as the year 1820, the U.S. Supreme Court was beginning to recognize that the term “United States” could designate either the whole, or a particular portion, of the American empire. In a case which is valuable, not only for its relevance to federal taxes, but also for its terse and discrete logic, Chief Justice Marshall exercised his characteristic brilliance in the following passage:

There is also a “United States of Brazil.” So, see how ridiculous it is to be asked the question of: Were you born in the United States? And, if you answer, which one, you are thought to be off your rocker, if you answer, e.g., I was born in the State of Virginia, a Republican State of the united States of America, This answer to them is taken to mean you have just admitted that you are in fact a “United States citizen" & therefore subject to it's jurisdiction.


So, it’s damned if you do & damned if you don’t. Heads they win & tails you lose. There is also the United States of Mexico, “Estados Unidos Mexicanos”. Re the question where were you born? I think is a fallacious one, since you could not know where you were born when the act took place, so the question should be, “Where have you been told you were born?” or “Where has it been represented as your place of birth to you?”


And as always, question everything before opening your mouth in reply to someone else’s question.


 The “The State vs this state” distinction is perplexing. So far, no one has been able to prove that the dichotomy exists. The most that can be offered for evidence is “all is at it appeares to be, or as it is so written”. I infer the existence of the alternative venue of “this state” from things like Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of the federal Constitution which declares in part, “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” That clause of the Constitution has never been repealed or amended and it presumably still in force today. And yet, our State governments pay their employees with Federal Reserve Notes, impose taxes, fees and fines with Federal Reserve Notes and conduct none of their financial dealings in gold or silver coin. Legaly, or lawfully, this must mean one of two things must be true:


1) every financial transaction conducted by means of Federal Reserve Notes (rather than gold or silver coin) by the governments of the States of the Union must be unconstitutional; or,


2) Those entities that currently pass for governments of the “States of the Union” are actually something else and therefore not subject to the gold/silver coin mandate of Article 1.10.1.


Note that Article 1.10.1 says “No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” At the time the federal Constitution was written, there was only one kind of “State”–the States of the Union. Thus, the States of the Union must use gold and silver coin. But there is no similar requirement for the territories of the United States nor for Washington DC. Instead, under Article 4.3.2 of the federal Constitution, the Congress shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories of the United States. Thus, within a territory (or Washington DC), it’s absolutely lawful and “constitutional” for Congress to authorize the use of Federal Reserve Notes as currency and even prohibit the use of gold and silver coin. Therefore, while gold and silver coin were mandated within the States of the Union like “The State of Texas,” “The State of Oklahoma” or “The State of California,” if “this state” (say, TX, OK or CA) were deemed to be a territory, gold and silver would not be mandated by the Constitution.


So, we are faced with a dilemma. Since your “state” does not use gold or silver coin as a tender in payment of debts, is your “state” always acting unconstitutionally whenever they impose a fee, fine or tax denominated in FRNs? Or, is your “state” actually a territory and therefore not obligated to use gold and silver coins?


I can't say that I or anyone else for that matter knows the answer without a doubt and with completeness of explination backed by proof of jurisdictional authority, but I presume the answer is that you your “state” is actually deemed to be a territory rather than a State of the Union. This presumption may be wrong, maybe your “state” really is a State of the Union and it’s simply violating the Constitution every time it touches a FRN. I am not so sure that’s the real full answer.


Part of the confusion about “this state” is based on the fact that you can find the term “this state” in State constitutions, in laws that go back a century or more. Are we to believe that “this state” has been used as a code to signify territories since the 1800s? Surely not. If “this state” really signifies “territories” rather than States of the Union, that signification has only been in effect, at most since the New Deal in A.D. 1933.


A more likely explination is that “this state” didn’t come to really exist until A.D. 1948 (see 28 USC 81-131 which may be the legal descriptions of each of the administrative districts of “this state”). But if the “The State vs this state” dichotomy is real, it must’ve started no later than A.D. 1968 when the last of silver coin was removed from domestic circulation and all financial transactions within the “states” had to be conducted with FRNs.


If the “The State vs this state” hypothesis is valid, “this state” (a territory) could not have existed prior to A.D. 1933, probably didn’t exist before A.D. 1948, and definitely had to exist no later than A.D. 1968.

Therefore, where you see a term like “this state” used in, say, your State Constitution that was adopted back about A.D. 1870, the term “this state” was used innocently. They wrote “this state” but meant “The State”. If you see an instance of “this state” written between A.D. 1933 and A.D. 1948, you should be cautious. If you seen an instance of “this state” written between A.D. 1948 and A.D. 1968, you should be extremely suspicious. If you see an instance of “this state” written after A.D. 1968, you could be very confident that the term was intended to signify a territory rather than a State of the Union.


This explanation may seem contrived. But if you’ve collected two or more of the Black’s Law Dictionaries (9–10?–editions published since about A.D. 1890), you can compare the meanings of words as they were defined in earlier editions to the meanings of words as defined in later editions and you will see that it is quite common for the “legal” meanings of words to change rapidly in the field of jurisprudence. Thus, it’s not the least bit surprising that a term like “this state” would have no significant meaning 100 years ago, but might have a very significant meaning today.


Is all this “perplexing”? Yes, indeed. But is the “The State vs this state” hypothesis really any more perplexing than a society and legal system that claims were are the “land of the free,” while any fool can see we are caught in a rapidly growing police state?


How do you explain the obvious and even horrific contradictions between what we can read as guaranteed in our Constitution and the police state we have become? One can explain these contradictions with the “The State vs this state” hypothesis.


All this legislative machinery of martial law, military coercion, and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other.” President Andrew Johnson, March 23,1867


“… here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 (million) people at once. It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands and degrades them all…” President Andrew Johnson, March 23,1867


Is there any wonder why President Andrew Johnson was REALLY impeached ??


Although temporary in theory, a state of martial law may in fact continue indefinitely.” The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7 Micropedia, Fifteenth Ed.1989.


This is where we have been, & this is where we are. It has been a slow insidious process. The “author” of all this oppression is just as “alive” today, as the inception thereof.

Thomas Jefferson asked, What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government that has existed under the sun”? He answers by saying: “The generalization and concentrating of all powers under one body;”


As written in Federalist # 47:

No political truth is of greater intrinsic value than that the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether hereditary, self appointed or elective, may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny;”


The “Father of our Country,” George Washington, said in his farewell address: “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the powers on one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism


COMMENT-The foregoing caveat is fulfilled for in observing the “Executive branch flag(s)” in the legislative and judicial “branches” and the U.S. Supreme Court, saying, that, “All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States,” accord, Supreme Court Rules, Process; Mandates, this is “the one body,” today, that Thomas Jefferson warned of. Today, the Legislative and Judicial BRANCHES may be justifiably called, extensions of the Executive BRANCH. What happened to the, DEPARTMENTS? A branch, is an extension of its source but a department is a separation from another body. Department is defined as, a separate part or division. Branch is defined as, “any offshoot of a MAIN stem, as the branch of a stream; an offshoot, lateral extension, or subdivision, a tributary stream.”


The stream has risen above its source.

Justice Wilson, says, in Chisholm v. Georgia: “I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that States and Governments were made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last oppressed their master and maker.”

NOW check out the judiciary act of June 25, 1948, and that’s when the lights should come on and you can observe that ‘the pattern’ is that, the ‘state’ is a corporate designation.

One of the ‘key’ pieces of evidence for this was discovered in the Texas Traffic Laws, VCS Art. 6675C – Motor Carrier Registration, Sec. 8,(d), which says, “a motor carrier who is required to register under Sec. 3 of this article and who is transporting household goods shall file a tariff with the department which establishes maximum charges for transportation services where, in the course of such transportation a highway between two or more incorporated cities, towns, or villages is traversed. This requirement may be satisfied by filing a copy of the carrier’s tariff governing interstate transportation services, where in the course of such transportation a highway between two or more incorporated cities, towns, or villages is traversed.”


In this respect, they are designating the “traversing” of two or more ‘corporate land-mass jurisdictions’ or ‘franchise territories’, is “interstate” transportation!!

These designations have become more prevalent as the State (Texas) has formed more corporate structures. You can read through the State Constitution and see the changes from the Original intent, through the more recent amendments. You will also find the slow transition of “Electors” being converted to “voters”, as in, token ‘corporate’ steering committee ‘members’ (qualified, by [sur]rendering property to the corp. for taxation.


Every one of these Corp. structures violates the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 26, – Perpetuities and Monopolies (pertinent part) – Perpetuities and monopolies are CONTRARY TO THE GENIUS OF A FREE GOVERNMENT AND SHALL NEVER BE ALLOWED…”

(emphasis added); which violates Article 1, Sec. 1, 2, 3, and several others.


We need to prosecute them on the point that it violates Sec. 2, “…preservation of a republican form of government..” We have NO representation in these corporate structures!


The elected officials violate their Oaths, the second that they walk into the Office buildings.. that are operating as perpetuities!!
Re: You have the municipal Federal government, for example in Washington D.C (your comment).


We also have the municipal State government. At least one Court said:

The tyranny in the American system of government begins with the acts & actions of the municipal authorities.” This is an admission that we do have tyranny & the governments are

tyrants,tyrannical governments, both State & Federal.

Look at this article for an exhaustive explanation of the states:




Please reload

Recent Posts

April 18, 2018

Please reload