The US Constitution

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by JoyAnna

...if the constitution were adhered to faithfully...

What safeguards would bring this about?

[Malynda]

Originally Posted by seashore

What safeguards would bring this about?

We the People. We are not entirely without fault. We need to know our rights and stand up for them.

"At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin."

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by Malynda

We the People. We are not entirely without fault. We need to know our rights and stand up for them.

Naomi Wolf is a good leader in this regard...

And people are producing videos and putting them on the internet to express concern...

We're communicating with others with this forum...

And I'm praying that the military and the police are reading this forum. I hope they will come through for us, rather than for the powers that be...

[Malynda]

Originally Posted by seashore

Naomi Wolf is a good leader in this regard...

And people are producing videos and putting them on the internet to express concern...

We're communicating with others with this forum...

And I'm praying that the military and the police are reading this forum. I hope they will come through for us, rather than for the powers that be...

Naomi Wolf is a shining star in my eyes right now. I am with you on this. I too hope the military and police see this for what it is. I believe military people (don't know too many police people) serve with good in their hearts for the most part. I have great respect for them. We just want our natural rights as humans as well as those we deserve as U. S. citizens. I don't know why that's such a big deal. They belong to us so let us have them.

[orthodoxymoron]

Here is a link which may make your hair stand on end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj0cu...eature=related.

I'm still researching Lex Fori...but it seems to involve foreign law superceding local law...in certain circumstances. While researching, I found this regarding the three city-states. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this information, but I have seen the same information elsewhere. Here is the link to the site http://www.911truth.ch/SMOM.html :

Vatican City, Rome, Italy. (religious center) (sovereign state since 1929)

City of London, London, United Kingdom. (economic center) (sovereign state since 1649, owned by the City of London Corporation)

District of Columbia (which includes Washington D.C.), United States. (military center)

The "District of Columbia Act of 1871" turned D.C. into a municipal corporation. Congress has the supreme authority over the city and the federal district, with its own special constitutional amendment since 1961. Furthermore the District of Columbia is judicially governed by the Lex fori as opposed to Lex causae.

"There is an increasingly common belief among many that this Act has overturned the United States Constitutional Republic. These theorists state that the "Corporate US" is actually operating under the name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, noting the capital letters as a distinction from the Constitutional Republic."

The Jesuit bishop John Carroll was probably the richest man in America in the late 1700's. Carroll allowed funding to construct D.C. (which is nicknamed "Rome on the Potomac"). The owner of the land used to be Francis Pope and his priest was Jesuit Andrew White.

Washington D.C.'s original name was Rome, Maryland, and a branch of the Potomac River was called Tiber Creek, which was named after the Tiber river in Rome. Like Rome, Washington D.C. has 7 hills, whose names are: Capitol Hill, Meridian Hill, Floral Hills, Forest Hills, Hillbrook, Hillcrest, and Knox Hill.


Here is a description of Lex Fori from Wikipedia. This is a start...but I'm sure there is a more complete explanation somewhere:


In Conflict of Laws, the Latin term lex fori literally means the "law of the forum" and it is distinguished from the lex causae which is the law the forum actually applies to resolve the particular case.


Explanation
Sovereignty comes into being through a process of recognition by the international community in which a de facto state is formally accepted as a de jure state and so becomes the legitimate government with territorial control over a defined area of land and all the people who reside within its borders. One of the most important sovereign powers of any government is to enact laws and to define the extent of their application.

Some laws will apply to all the land and its peoples. Others will be of more limited application. These laws will be applied through different bodies and institutions. Some will be formally constituted as courts. Other bodies will exercise specific functions within quasi-judicial, administrative, religious or other frameworks. For example, in Pakistan, section 7 Muslim Family Law Ordinance enacted in 1961 reformed the traditional form of Islamic divorce known as the talaq by requiring that notification of the pronouncement of the talaq must be delivered to the Chairman of a local administrative unit known as the Union Council which must consider whether the parties can be reconciled. All such bodies are termed forums and each state will carefully define which laws may be considered or applied, by whom, and in which circumstances. These are the issue of jurisdiction and procedure.

When a lawsuit is instituted and the court has accepted that it has jurisdiction, the parties will normally expect the local laws to apply, reflecting a presumption of territoriality – that each state is sovereign within its own borders and the laws of no other state or international body will apply extraterritorially or supranationally. If foreign laws did apply, the state would be less than sovereign within its own borders. However, as social mobility has increased and the Internet encourages people to trade across national boundaries, a need to recognise the relevance and importance of foreign laws to dispute resolution has arisen. Hence, within the precise limits set by the lex fori, local courts may sometimes apply one or more foreign laws as the lex causae if the local politics, public policy and the dictates of justice require it. For a more complete explanation, refer to the pages on characterisation, and choice of law.

A further issue for the lex fori to consider is the situation where a dispute has already been litigated in another state. Can the foreign judgment be recognised and enforced by action in the courts of a second state? To require cases to be relitigated is expensive and time-consuming, so most states with developed legal systems have entered into mutual or multilateral treaties allowing for judgments to be enforced unless one or more specified defects can be shown (see enforcement of foreign judgments).

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron

Here is a link which may make your hair stand on end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj0cu...eature=related.

I couldn't watch more than about 30 seconds...

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron

I'm still researching Lex Fori...but it seems to involve foreign law superceding local law...in certain circumstances. While researching, I found this regarding the three city-states. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this information, but I have seen the same information elsewhere. Here is the link to the site http://www.911truth.ch/SMOM.html

Here is what the above link says about DC being a corporation:

"The 'District of Columbia Act of 1871' turned D.C. into a municipal corporation."

So it's a "municipal corporation."

Here is what an online legal dictionary says a municipal corporation is:

"...A municipal corporation is a city, town, village, or borough that has governmental powers. A municipality is a city, town, village, or, in some states, a borough. A corporation is an entity capable of conducting business. Cities, towns, villages, and some boroughs are called municipal corporations because they have the power to conduct business with the private sector....

...Municipal corporations are an important feature of the political structure of the United States. Incorporating a municipality gives it the freedom to form a society that is distinct from other localities in the state and around the country. This idea of local control is the same concept that animates the constitutional division of the country into a collection of smaller states. By giving municipalities some autonomy, individuals are more capable of participating in politics and gaining a measure of control over their lives than if political activity occurred only on the federal and state levels."

Here is the link to the full definition:

Municipal Corporation

I think the word "municipal" makes all the difference...

[orthodoxymoron]

Skip the first 3 or 4 minutes. I included the link because of the part about the United States...although the first part may be part of the big picture for the U.S. The clip is not tactful...but I think it contains information which should be considered. Further research would need to be done to get a clear and accurate picture of what is really going on with the city-states.

[Malynda]

Now I need to go learn abotu city-states. I knew something was odd about D. C. besides the architecture and design. Thank you, orthodoxymoron. I will watch your video as soon as I finish listening to the current video. Multi-tasking rules!

[777 The Great Work]

You all will Njoy this video- DC Street Sorcery.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...ry&hl=en&emb=0

Constitution= Cost-N-Tuition

[orthodoxymoron]

Originally Posted by 777 The Great Work

You all will Njoy this video- DC Street Sorcery.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...ry&hl=en&emb=0

Constitution= Cost-N-Tuition

Thank-you for this link. I knew about occult symbolism in Washington D.C...but I didn't realize how extensive it really is. I liked the suggestion of the host...that our representatives remain in their districts...and communicate via internet, etc...and stay away from this haunted town...which is full of lobbyists, satanists, prostitutes, republicans, and sinners. Many well meaning and patriotic people have gone to Washington D.C. with high hopes...but quickly became corrupt and evil. Maybe someday Washington D.C. will be a collection of museums...and the government will largely function electronically, and from a different location...possibly underground...with the U.S. Constitution firmly and unalterably in place.

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron

...which is full of ... republicans...

What is your meaning here?

[orthodoxymoron]

Originally Posted by seashore

What is your meaning here?

It's just a play on words. Jesus spoke of publicans and sinners...and I changed it to republicans and sinners. I don't have anything(much) against republicans. I'm a paleoconservative republican.

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron

Skip the first 3 or 4 minutes. I included the link because of the part about the United States...although the first part may be part of the big picture for the U.S. The clip is not tactful...but I think it contains information which should be considered. Further research would need to be done to get a clear and accurate picture of what is really going on with the city-states.

Okay. I just finished watching. I took four pages of notes.

I thought the District of Columbia and Washington, DC were the same thing. The District of Columbia is actually within Washington? It's ten square miles of land in the heart of Washington?

It has its own flag?? It has its own Constitution?? This Constitution is associated with "tyrannical Roman law" lex fori, which "has no resemblance to the US Constitution"?

The Act of 1871 created a separate, corporate government for the District of Columbia, which allows it to operate outside the US Constitution? Is this true?

A 13th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1810, called the "Titles of Nobility and Honour," no longer appears in the US Constitution? Is this true?

Did the War of 1812 destroy ratification records of the US Constitution?

Is the United States a corporation?

Thank you, orthodoxymoron, for posting this video.

Avalon members, please help me verify this stuff.

[Malynda]

Originally Posted by seashore

A 13th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1810, called the "Titles of Nobility and Honour," no longer appears in the US Constitution? Is this true?

Quick search yielded this result...

Titles of Nobility Amendment
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." Wikipedia entry

Much more info if you follow the link, of course.

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by Malynda

Titles of Nobility Amendment
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." Wikipedia entry

Much more info if you follow the link, of course.

Okay, the Wikipedia entry says that it dates from 1810 but it was never ratified, whereas the video gives the same date but says it was ratified.

However, I guess the important thing is that the video states that after the Revolutionary War, in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, that the King of England was identified as the Prince of the United States and that the treaty contradicts the belief that America won the war. It says that the king retained his right to continue to receive payments for his business venture of colonizing America, and that we agreed to pay debts and reparations to the King of England. It says the 13th Amendment was passed to make the President subservient to the King of England.

[Malynda]

Originally Posted by seashore

Okay, the Wikipedia entry says that it dates from 1810 but it was never ratified, whereas the video gives the same date but says it was ratified.

However, I guess the important thing is that the video states that after the Revolutionary War, in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, that the King of England was identified as the Prince of the United States and that the treaty contradicts the belief that America won the war. It says that the king retained his right to continue to receive payments for his business venture of colonizing America, and that we agreed to pay debts and reparations to the King of England. It says the 13th Amendment was passed to make the President subservient to the King of England.

I'm confused by the yes it was ratified, no it wasn't. I'm going to look into the Paris Peace Treaty and more on this amendment. Any info or sources you have would be great. Thanks for the discussion. I'm a bit angry at all this but that's a good thing I guess.

Any lawyers out there that can help translate legalese, pretty please?

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by seashore

Okay. I just finished watching....It has its own Constitution?? This Constitution is associated with "tyrannical Roman law" lex fori, which "has no resemblance to the US Constitution"?

I can't find anything on this. It appears to me that this is not true...

[orthodoxymoron]

In the video documentary 'Ring of Power' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj0cu...eature=related the following assertion is made: 'The flag of the Washington District of Columbia has three red stars. One for each city state in the empire. This empire rules the world economically through London's "City", militarily by the District of Columbia, and spiritually by the Vatican. The Constitution for the District of Columbia operates under a tyrannical Roman law known as the lex fori and has no similarities to the U.S. Constitution'. http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php...308-000266.htm Another 'Ring of Power' assertion is that 'When Congress passed the Act of 1871 it created a separate corporate government for the District of Columbia. This treasonous act allowed the District of Columbia to operate as a corporation outside the original constitution of the United States and outside of the best interest of American citizens.' The following are links which touch on the subject of this thread.
I am neither confirming or denying the validity or accuracy of the links.
http://greyfalcon.us/The%20Empire%20Never%20Ended.htm
http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/s...heir_power.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk1/...S/USPagan.html
http://www.theconspiracyexplained.com/USA.html
http://www.rense.com/general74/vattt.htm
http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php...308-000266.htm
http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc76.htm
http://www.aoc.gov
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Capi...ss&w=all&s=int
http://dc.about.com/cs/walkingtours/a/Capitol.htm
http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&...+inside&m=text

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron

The flag of the Washington District of Columbia has three red stars. One for each city state in the empire. This empire rules the world economically through London's "City", militarily by the District of Columbia, and spiritually by the Vatican. The Constitution for the District of Columbia operates under a tyrannical Roman law known as the lex fori and has no similarities to the U.S. Constitution.

orthodoxymoron,

Is the above quote your own assertions or are you quoting the video here?

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron

http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php...308-000266.htm

In the above link, who or what is the "Z X C"? And beginning with the sixth paragraph, there are quotation marks but it doesn't say who is being quoted. Do you know? Is this site a blog that you're familiar with?

[orthodoxymoron]

Originally Posted by seashore

orthodoxymoron,

Is the above quote your own assertions or are you quoting the video here?

In the above link, who or what is the "Z X C"? And beginning with the sixth paragraph, there are quotation marks but it doesn't say who is being quoted. Do you know? Is this site a blog that you're familiar with?

Just quoting the 'Ring of Power' video which we were discussing. No...I simply copied and pasted the links. Here is one more, which may or may not, have a bearing on sovereignty and the Constitution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCMNu1ToWPA.

[orthodoxymoron]

Here is yet another link: http://www.byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf. It is a discussion of the 1871 issue...which I don't necessarily endorse. I'm just passing it on. This isn't my issue. Actually...I'm much more interested in Constructive Competition, Positive Response Ability, and Constitutional Responsible Freedom...as it relates to the U.S. Constitution. I'm more interested in reading the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers...and learning more about the founding of the United States and the formulation of the Constitution. I'm more interested in constitutional law and in how the Constitution is applied each and every day. I don't know a lot about all of the above...but I am making progress. Here is a positive approach to the Constitution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY5vO...eature=related.

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron

Here is yet another link: http://www.byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf. It is a discussion of the 1871 issue...

And here's a different link:

The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation! by Lisa Guliani

Lisa states:

"...The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land....

In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:

'The Constitution for the united states of America'.

The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not."

_______________________________________________

I found a link to the actual legislation:

American Memory

The author Lisa must be mistaken when she says "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34... because I see that "Sections" are subtitles of a "Chapter," not a "Congress." (There is a Section 34 of chapter 62, however.)

Also, chapter 61 (pages 417 - 419) is entitled "Consular and Diplomatic Expenses Appropriation," so I don't know why she includes it.

Additionally, I see from the index that chapter 60 is missing.

Here is a copy of that index page:



Here is a copy of the first page of the legislation, which is too long to post (pages 419 - 429). It begins half way down the page:



Here is a copy of the Section 34 of chapter 62. It appears to be unrelated to the issue:



I'm thinking that what this author Lisa Guliani must be saying is that subsequent to this legislation, our Constitution title changed to all capital letters, indicating corporate status. She says the Constitution originally read "The Constitution for the united states of America" and now it reads "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." I wonder whether we can verify this...

David Icke writes about the significance of names written in all caps...

Hmmm...

_______________________________________________


Additional research: A direct response to Lisa's assertions, by G. Edward Griffin

[Malynda]

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron

Just quoting the 'Ring of Power' video which we were discussing. No...I simply copied and pasted the links. Here is one more, which may or may not, have a bearing on sovereignty and the Constitution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCMNu1ToWPA.

Now that was a trippy video. Sure looks like a grey but who knows with all the tricks you can do. Does make me go "hmmm" though.

[orthodoxymoron]

I'm just trying to sample a lot of different things and points of view...but not get bogged down on any one thing...or take anything too seriously. Here is yet another viewpoint on Washington D.C. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eynHq...eature=related.