WWW.ADASK.WORDPRESS.COM
As Bill Clinton once observed, when it comes to knowing what a law means, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” In other words, the meaning of every law depends on the underlying definitions of every word used to comprise that law.
This implies that if you’re charged under a particular law and you can successfully refute the presumed definition of just one of the key words in that law, you may be able to defeat the charges.
Recognize that most words have several definitions and you can see that discovering the the meaning of any law can be very complex. For example, suppose there’s a law that consists of ten words and each of those ten words have just two different possible definitions. If I’m doing my math properly, there would be 2 to the 10th power (1,024) possible meanings for that 10-word “law”. So, which of the 1,012 possible meanings for that 10 word law is the law?
As Clinton said, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
The law depends on the definitions of the words used to write the law. Thus, the definitions are the underlying and even superior “law” of the law.
But who gets to declare what that meaning of a word is? Who has authority to define words?
• I subscribe to the hypothesis that since A.D. 1968 (the loss of silver-backed currency): 1) the term “The State” has been generally used by the “system” to describe the States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”; and 2) the term “this state” has been used by the system as a “code” to signify something other than the States of the Union and probably administrative divisions of a single national “territory” under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress (Art. 4.3.2 of The Constitution of the United States).
I didn’t author that hypothesis, but I’ve supported it for a decade or more. I’ve written a series of articles that touch on that hypothesis (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/category/the-state-vs-this-state/).
For me, one of the most important “finds” in support of that hypothesis was Article 1.04(d) of the Texas Penal Code (see, http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm) which defines the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” as follows:
“This state includes the land and water and the air space above the land and water over which this state has power to define offenses.”
Note that “this state” is not defined to include any people, nor does it have any geographic borders. Without border, it could be global (or even universal) in nature. It might be the working definition of the territorial jurisdiction of the New World Order.
But, most importantly, I read Texas Penal Code 1.04(d) to mean that the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” exists wherever “this state has power to define offense”.
This implies that it’s all about definitions.
Given that “this state” has no geographical borders (and presumably extends out to Oklahama, Canada, Mexico and even Mars), it appears that if you accept the definitions of “this state,” then you’re presumed to be in the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”. If so, it may follow that if you reject the definitions of “this state,” you are not “in this state” or subject to its territorial jurisdiction.
• Note also that the definition of this state’s territorial jurisdiction relies on the “power to define offenses”—not the “authority to define offenses”.
For example, on this blog, I have the “power” to define words any way I like. If I want to define the word “peace” to mean “war,” I have the power to do so within the “jurisdiction” of my blog. Not one of you can stop me from defining words however I like on my blog.
But. While I may have the power to define words however I please on my blog, I do not have the authority to make any one of you accept my definitions. So long as I have power—but not authority—to define words, you have a choice as to whether you wish to agree that “war” means “war” or “war” means “peace”.
I believe that something similar applies to the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”. The “Achilles heel” of “this state” appears to be that it has much power, but no authority. Today, The States of the Union appear to have virtually no power, but still retain all of the authority. “This state,” conversely, has virtually all of the power, but none of the authority.
Why? Because authority over the people flows from the People’s consent. That consent was manifested on a state-wide basis by the Constitution of The State of Texas. “This state,” however, has no express constitution authorized by We the People. Thus, “this state” has no authority over you or me, unless you or I grant that authority on a case-by-case, transaction-by-transaction basis. I might recognize the “authority” of “this state” today in my decision to register my automobile; I might reject the “authority” of “this state” tomorrow when I refuse to pay sales taxes. It’s my choice every time I transact.
Without our presumed consent (actually, assent), “this state” couldn’t exist. This notion seems to underlie the de facto officer doctrine created by the US Supreme Court: If some employee of a private corporation wearing a badge and a gun comes up to you and you say “What seems to be the problem, officer”—it will be presumed that you have just recognized that private employee as an “officer” of the de jure government; that, by your act of “recognition,” you have thereby given that private employee authority (that he didn’t have from his employer) to proceed against you; that you have voluntarily provided that employee with immunity from your subsequent lawsuit against him for impersonating an “officer” of the constitutional State’s government.
Everything I’ve been able to see for ten years indicates that “this state” is all based on your presumed assent. Because you don’t expressly object, it is presumed that you have voluntarily but silently “assented” to the exercise of power by “this state”. However, if you can defeat that presumption (and I don’t suggest that it’s easy to do so), it appears that you may be able to walk right out from under the “power” of “this state”.
• Insofar as definitions are the foundation for the territorial jurisdiction of “this state,” if you don’t asssent to the definitions “proposed” by “this state,” you’re not really “in this state”.
Of course, before you can object to any of the definitions proposed by “this state,” you’ve got to begin to discover those definitions and learn to read them with enough insight to refute them and then claim to use a different definition.
I don’t mean to suggest that you decide to insist on your own, “homemade” definitions as an alternative to the definitions of “this state”. You will not be able to define “war” to be “peace” and expect the courts of “this state” to do much more than grin and ship you off for a psyche evaluation.
In order to challenge the definitions of “this state,” you will have to be able to point to alternative definitions that are supported by some authority that “this state” will not be able to easily deny—especially in front of a jury.
For example, when I was sued by the Texas Attorney General for $25,000/day ($9 million /year) (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/) I devised a “freedom of religion” defense and (after investing 6 years and most of one-half million dollars in the pretrial investigation and hearings in the case), the Texas AG dropped the lawsuit. I didn’t fully understand it at the time (A.D. 2006), but the essence of my defense was a challenge to the definitions of “this state”. The gov-co defined the people to be “animals”. I argued that as Jew or Christian, I cannot be defined as an “animal” without violating a fundamental principle of my faith: that man alone is created in God’s image and given “dominion over the animals” (Genesis 1:26-28). I defined myself as a “man” under God’s law. The AG’s office presumably realized they could never find a jury that included even one Christian or Jew to vote that I and the rest of the People are animals—and dropped the case.
The Texas Penal code’s definition of “this state,” supra, includes no fixed borders and no people. However, if I recall correctly, in the A.D. 1869 case of Texas v White, the Supreme Court defined a “State” (of the Union) to normally include: 1) the People; 2) a fixed territory; and 3) a State government. Such a “State” (of the Union) could exist without fixed borders or even without a functioning State government, but could not exist without any People. Thus, the Supreme Court’s definition of a State of the Union (which includes People) is clearly different from the Texas Penal Code’s definition of “this state” (which apparently has no People).
I infer that if you want to challenge the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” simply identify yourself under oath as one of the People of The State of Texas—just as it says in the Preamble to The Constitution of The State of Texas: “Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
This strategy is not certain to free you from the “territorial jurisdiction” of “this state”—other tactics may be required to affect your Liberty—but defining yourself under the authority of the Texas Constitution as one of the People of The State of Texas is a big first step in that direction.
• I’ve argued for several months that if you would be free, you must have at least as many dictionaries as you have firearms.
One dictionary is not enough. You need several dictionaries from several different eras so you can view the meaning of a word in one dictionary from A.D. 1828 and compare it to another dictionary in A.D. 1933 and another from A.D. 2009. By comparing the definitions of a particular word over a century or more, you’ll begin to appreciate how fluid and unfixed meanings can be.
Once you see how quickly definitions can change (especially in law dictionaries), you’ll begin to see that a definition from even yesterday might not be the definition today. Once you appreciate how quickly the definitions can change, you’ll be led to ask, “Who sez what a definition is at any particular time?” In other words, under whose authority is the definition of a word changed or decided at any given time?
In some instances, the authority is the Supreme Court. In some instances, Congress. But in many instances the authority is We the People in the context of our private contracts, notices, trusts and daily communications. Insofar as those definitions are changed by common usage, they’re changed by mutual consent. (For example, today’s common definition of the word “gay” is quite different from the common definition of 50 years ago. That change has been achieved by mutual consent.) If you don’t consent to a definition that depends on your consent, you’re not likely to be bound by the terms of whatever sentences use that word and definition.
• More, even when the Congress or Supreme Court acts with apparent authority to define words (and thus would not seem to require your personal consent) under certain circumstances, their apparent authority can be challenged. If their authority is missing, then the definition cannot be imposed but instead requires your consent.
For example, the 9th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States declares, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.” The 9th Amendment is the doorway back to the “Declaration of Independence” that declares that, “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Thus, the 9th Amendment’s protection for rights not expressly “enumerated” in the Constitution opens the door for me to claim the God-given, unalienable Rights first declared in the “Declaration”.
But. Who is defined by the 9th Amendment as being entitled to claim those unenumerated rights? The “people”. (“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.”) If you appear in court in the capacity of a “citizen,” “inhabitant,” “individual,” “resident,” “person” or any one of a score of other descriptions, your claim of God-given, unalienable Rights might be ignored. Court is a game of words much like Mother May I or Simon Says. If you don’t say the exactly right word at the right time, you may lose.
• Insofar as the 9th Amendment opens the door for me to claim my God-given, unalienable Rights, it also opens the door to challenge the authority of Congress or the Supreme Court to define any word in a way that would “deny or disparage” any of my unenumerated rights.
For example, the drug laws define the people to be “animals”. If you and I are mere “animals,” then: 1) we are not men made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”); and 2) we are not “people” under the 9th Amendment. As “animals,” we have no standing to claim any God-given, unalienable Rights or complain if those rights are violated.
But. Does the Congress or Supreme Court have authority to define you and I to be “animals”? No.
Why?
Because defining us to be “animals” violates our freedom of religion (as protected by the 1st Amendment) and our access to our God-given, unalienable Rights (as secured by the 9th Amendment). Insofar as you can point to authority in the Bible, Declaration of Independence, and 1st and 9th Amendments to show that you are a “man” and one of the “people,” you can claim your God-given, unalienable Rights and individual sovereignty any time you find enough intelligence, knowledge and courage to do so.
What’s the implication?
The implication is that you can be defined and treated as an “animal” only so long as you consent (or assent) to that definition. Would you like to regain your Liberty? Stop assenting to be treated as an “animal” (or any other kind of entity other than a “man made in God’s image, endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and one of the People of The State of Texas” (or of some other States of the Union).
If this strategy seems fairly simple, it’s still not easy to execute. You’re not likely to walk into court mumble a few words about the Bible, Declaration and 9th Amendment and see the case against you dismissed.
It’s a word game, remember?
Insofar as that’s true, you must be fluent in the language. You must be adept at using words. You must make it your business to discipline your mind to think and speak in complete sentences. No more “watchamacallits” or “whatisface” or “y’unnerstan?”. You must aspire to write and speak like Thomas Jefferson. Not many of us will achieve that objective. But if you aspire only to talk like one of your “homies in duh hood,” you may be cool, baby, but you be goin’ to jail.
If you want out from under “this state,” your first step is to become fluent in the English language.
• Once you begin to study and learn your own language, once you begin to study dictionaries, you’ll begin to understand that definitions are ultimately consensual in nature. Insofar as the exercise of power by “this state” depends on a preliminary Notice or a meeting of the minds, that Notice and/or “meeting” depend on the parties agreeing to the definitions of the words which comprise that notice of “meeting of the minds”. If you can effectively refute the definitions of “this state,” you may be able to hold “this state” at bay.
The battle against tyranny may devolve into a shooting revolution, but that battle is first and foremost a battle of words. You are ensnared in a seemingly invisible net composed of nothing more than words.
It follows that, insofar as you become adept at discerning between the meanings and definitions of words, you can begin to extricate yourself from the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”.
As Bill Clinton once observed, when it comes to knowing what a law means, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” In other words, the meaning of every law depends on the underlying definitions of every word used to comprise that law.
This implies that if you’re charged under a particular law and you can successfully refute the presumed definition of just one of the key words in that law, you may be able to defeat the charges.
Recognize that most words have several definitions and you can see that discovering the the meaning of any law can be very complex. For example, suppose there’s a law that consists of ten words and each of those ten words have just two different possible definitions. If I’m doing my math properly, there would be 2 to the 10th power (1,024) possible meanings for that 10-word “law”. So, which of the 1,012 possible meanings for that 10 word law is the law?
As Clinton said, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
The law depends on the definitions of the words used to write the law. Thus, the definitions are the underlying and even superior “law” of the law.
But who gets to declare what that meaning of a word is? Who has authority to define words?
• I subscribe to the hypothesis that since A.D. 1968 (the loss of silver-backed currency): 1) the term “The State” has been generally used by the “system” to describe the States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”; and 2) the term “this state” has been used by the system as a “code” to signify something other than the States of the Union and probably administrative divisions of a single national “territory” under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress (Art. 4.3.2 of The Constitution of the United States).
I didn’t author that hypothesis, but I’ve supported it for a decade or more. I’ve written a series of articles that touch on that hypothesis (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/category/the-state-vs-this-state/).
For me, one of the most important “finds” in support of that hypothesis was Article 1.04(d) of the Texas Penal Code (see, http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm) which defines the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” as follows:
“This state includes the land and water and the air space above the land and water over which this state has power to define offenses.”
Note that “this state” is not defined to include any people, nor does it have any geographic borders. Without border, it could be global (or even universal) in nature. It might be the working definition of the territorial jurisdiction of the New World Order.
But, most importantly, I read Texas Penal Code 1.04(d) to mean that the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” exists wherever “this state has power to define offense”.
This implies that it’s all about definitions.
Given that “this state” has no geographical borders (and presumably extends out to Oklahama, Canada, Mexico and even Mars), it appears that if you accept the definitions of “this state,” then you’re presumed to be in the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”. If so, it may follow that if you reject the definitions of “this state,” you are not “in this state” or subject to its territorial jurisdiction.
• Note also that the definition of this state’s territorial jurisdiction relies on the “power to define offenses”—not the “authority to define offenses”.
For example, on this blog, I have the “power” to define words any way I like. If I want to define the word “peace” to mean “war,” I have the power to do so within the “jurisdiction” of my blog. Not one of you can stop me from defining words however I like on my blog.
But. While I may have the power to define words however I please on my blog, I do not have the authority to make any one of you accept my definitions. So long as I have power—but not authority—to define words, you have a choice as to whether you wish to agree that “war” means “war” or “war” means “peace”.
I believe that something similar applies to the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”. The “Achilles heel” of “this state” appears to be that it has much power, but no authority. Today, The States of the Union appear to have virtually no power, but still retain all of the authority. “This state,” conversely, has virtually all of the power, but none of the authority.
Why? Because authority over the people flows from the People’s consent. That consent was manifested on a state-wide basis by the Constitution of The State of Texas. “This state,” however, has no express constitution authorized by We the People. Thus, “this state” has no authority over you or me, unless you or I grant that authority on a case-by-case, transaction-by-transaction basis. I might recognize the “authority” of “this state” today in my decision to register my automobile; I might reject the “authority” of “this state” tomorrow when I refuse to pay sales taxes. It’s my choice every time I transact.
Without our presumed consent (actually, assent), “this state” couldn’t exist. This notion seems to underlie the de facto officer doctrine created by the US Supreme Court: If some employee of a private corporation wearing a badge and a gun comes up to you and you say “What seems to be the problem, officer”—it will be presumed that you have just recognized that private employee as an “officer” of the de jure government; that, by your act of “recognition,” you have thereby given that private employee authority (that he didn’t have from his employer) to proceed against you; that you have voluntarily provided that employee with immunity from your subsequent lawsuit against him for impersonating an “officer” of the constitutional State’s government.
Everything I’ve been able to see for ten years indicates that “this state” is all based on your presumed assent. Because you don’t expressly object, it is presumed that you have voluntarily but silently “assented” to the exercise of power by “this state”. However, if you can defeat that presumption (and I don’t suggest that it’s easy to do so), it appears that you may be able to walk right out from under the “power” of “this state”.
• Insofar as definitions are the foundation for the territorial jurisdiction of “this state,” if you don’t asssent to the definitions “proposed” by “this state,” you’re not really “in this state”.
Of course, before you can object to any of the definitions proposed by “this state,” you’ve got to begin to discover those definitions and learn to read them with enough insight to refute them and then claim to use a different definition.
I don’t mean to suggest that you decide to insist on your own, “homemade” definitions as an alternative to the definitions of “this state”. You will not be able to define “war” to be “peace” and expect the courts of “this state” to do much more than grin and ship you off for a psyche evaluation.
In order to challenge the definitions of “this state,” you will have to be able to point to alternative definitions that are supported by some authority that “this state” will not be able to easily deny—especially in front of a jury.
For example, when I was sued by the Texas Attorney General for $25,000/day ($9 million /year) (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/) I devised a “freedom of religion” defense and (after investing 6 years and most of one-half million dollars in the pretrial investigation and hearings in the case), the Texas AG dropped the lawsuit. I didn’t fully understand it at the time (A.D. 2006), but the essence of my defense was a challenge to the definitions of “this state”. The gov-co defined the people to be “animals”. I argued that as Jew or Christian, I cannot be defined as an “animal” without violating a fundamental principle of my faith: that man alone is created in God’s image and given “dominion over the animals” (Genesis 1:26-28). I defined myself as a “man” under God’s law. The AG’s office presumably realized they could never find a jury that included even one Christian or Jew to vote that I and the rest of the People are animals—and dropped the case.
The Texas Penal code’s definition of “this state,” supra, includes no fixed borders and no people. However, if I recall correctly, in the A.D. 1869 case of Texas v White, the Supreme Court defined a “State” (of the Union) to normally include: 1) the People; 2) a fixed territory; and 3) a State government. Such a “State” (of the Union) could exist without fixed borders or even without a functioning State government, but could not exist without any People. Thus, the Supreme Court’s definition of a State of the Union (which includes People) is clearly different from the Texas Penal Code’s definition of “this state” (which apparently has no People).
I infer that if you want to challenge the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” simply identify yourself under oath as one of the People of The State of Texas—just as it says in the Preamble to The Constitution of The State of Texas: “Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
This strategy is not certain to free you from the “territorial jurisdiction” of “this state”—other tactics may be required to affect your Liberty—but defining yourself under the authority of the Texas Constitution as one of the People of The State of Texas is a big first step in that direction.
• I’ve argued for several months that if you would be free, you must have at least as many dictionaries as you have firearms.
One dictionary is not enough. You need several dictionaries from several different eras so you can view the meaning of a word in one dictionary from A.D. 1828 and compare it to another dictionary in A.D. 1933 and another from A.D. 2009. By comparing the definitions of a particular word over a century or more, you’ll begin to appreciate how fluid and unfixed meanings can be.
Once you see how quickly definitions can change (especially in law dictionaries), you’ll begin to see that a definition from even yesterday might not be the definition today. Once you appreciate how quickly the definitions can change, you’ll be led to ask, “Who sez what a definition is at any particular time?” In other words, under whose authority is the definition of a word changed or decided at any given time?
In some instances, the authority is the Supreme Court. In some instances, Congress. But in many instances the authority is We the People in the context of our private contracts, notices, trusts and daily communications. Insofar as those definitions are changed by common usage, they’re changed by mutual consent. (For example, today’s common definition of the word “gay” is quite different from the common definition of 50 years ago. That change has been achieved by mutual consent.) If you don’t consent to a definition that depends on your consent, you’re not likely to be bound by the terms of whatever sentences use that word and definition.
• More, even when the Congress or Supreme Court acts with apparent authority to define words (and thus would not seem to require your personal consent) under certain circumstances, their apparent authority can be challenged. If their authority is missing, then the definition cannot be imposed but instead requires your consent.
For example, the 9th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States declares, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.” The 9th Amendment is the doorway back to the “Declaration of Independence” that declares that, “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Thus, the 9th Amendment’s protection for rights not expressly “enumerated” in the Constitution opens the door for me to claim the God-given, unalienable Rights first declared in the “Declaration”.
But. Who is defined by the 9th Amendment as being entitled to claim those unenumerated rights? The “people”. (“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.”) If you appear in court in the capacity of a “citizen,” “inhabitant,” “individual,” “resident,” “person” or any one of a score of other descriptions, your claim of God-given, unalienable Rights might be ignored. Court is a game of words much like Mother May I or Simon Says. If you don’t say the exactly right word at the right time, you may lose.
• Insofar as the 9th Amendment opens the door for me to claim my God-given, unalienable Rights, it also opens the door to challenge the authority of Congress or the Supreme Court to define any word in a way that would “deny or disparage” any of my unenumerated rights.
For example, the drug laws define the people to be “animals”. If you and I are mere “animals,” then: 1) we are not men made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”); and 2) we are not “people” under the 9th Amendment. As “animals,” we have no standing to claim any God-given, unalienable Rights or complain if those rights are violated.
But. Does the Congress or Supreme Court have authority to define you and I to be “animals”? No.
Why?
Because defining us to be “animals” violates our freedom of religion (as protected by the 1st Amendment) and our access to our God-given, unalienable Rights (as secured by the 9th Amendment). Insofar as you can point to authority in the Bible, Declaration of Independence, and 1st and 9th Amendments to show that you are a “man” and one of the “people,” you can claim your God-given, unalienable Rights and individual sovereignty any time you find enough intelligence, knowledge and courage to do so.
What’s the implication?
The implication is that you can be defined and treated as an “animal” only so long as you consent (or assent) to that definition. Would you like to regain your Liberty? Stop assenting to be treated as an “animal” (or any other kind of entity other than a “man made in God’s image, endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and one of the People of The State of Texas” (or of some other States of the Union).
If this strategy seems fairly simple, it’s still not easy to execute. You’re not likely to walk into court mumble a few words about the Bible, Declaration and 9th Amendment and see the case against you dismissed.
It’s a word game, remember?
Insofar as that’s true, you must be fluent in the language. You must be adept at using words. You must make it your business to discipline your mind to think and speak in complete sentences. No more “watchamacallits” or “whatisface” or “y’unnerstan?”. You must aspire to write and speak like Thomas Jefferson. Not many of us will achieve that objective. But if you aspire only to talk like one of your “homies in duh hood,” you may be cool, baby, but you be goin’ to jail.
If you want out from under “this state,” your first step is to become fluent in the English language.
• Once you begin to study and learn your own language, once you begin to study dictionaries, you’ll begin to understand that definitions are ultimately consensual in nature. Insofar as the exercise of power by “this state” depends on a preliminary Notice or a meeting of the minds, that Notice and/or “meeting” depend on the parties agreeing to the definitions of the words which comprise that notice of “meeting of the minds”. If you can effectively refute the definitions of “this state,” you may be able to hold “this state” at bay.
The battle against tyranny may devolve into a shooting revolution, but that battle is first and foremost a battle of words. You are ensnared in a seemingly invisible net composed of nothing more than words.
It follows that, insofar as you become adept at discerning between the meanings and definitions of words, you can begin to extricate yourself from the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”.
No comments:
Post a Comment