1

Teaching "The Organic Laws of The

United States of America"
Without a vision the people parish.

Date: 8/16/16 to 9/22/16

If you can lay your hands on volume one of "United States Code"
you should find a page after the "Table of Titles and Chapters"
that says: "The Organic Laws of The United States of America". In
my 2006 edition that page is XLIII. The four Organic Laws follow
in this order:

"The Declaration of Independence-1776",

the "Articles of Confederation-1777",
the "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government",
the "Constitution of The United States" of America-1787"

(Also published online.[5])

The publishing of all four Organic Laws at the beginning of the

"United States Code" is the perfect place indicating that the
foundation for all federal "law" comes from the entire set of these
four Organic Laws. Lawful federal "law" can not come about any
other way.

I'm inspired to start this post after responding to a request from a

colleague who wants to understand the Organic Laws "and how
they pertain". These last three words are what motivates me to
sharing this information and especially my understanding. My
email response was sent at "20:20"!

"20/20" is considered perfect vision. There are many situations in

life were perfect vision is required. Entrance into the United Staes
Air Force used to require perfect vision. It is my belief that every
American individual who lives in any of the several states in The
United States of America deserves to have "perfect vision" in
 2

regards to their Rights as a "free inhabitant". I count is as most

unfortunate that a number of conditioning factors (including
government schools) have made it virtually impossible for the
American people to have the particular "perfect vision" that I am
referring here. I wish to support American individuals in rebuilding
their vision of America.

I sent my first lesson: "Organic Laws: Lesson One" to an activist

within the "right to choose" movement concerning the apparent
mandatory vaccination (or should that read vacci-nation?) that
seems to have gone "viral" (at least cross-country) and well
beyond any kind of "pandemic" proportions! (I imagine that the
vaccine manufacturers got inspired by the multiplication capacity
of certain viruses and applied that to their marketing strategy.)

***
8/17/16 -

Also started teaching about "income" based on the true limitations

of the Organic Laws (that is the focus of the advanced course
under Professor Rivera). Just sent off a follow-up correspondence
as follows:

Hi _____!

Just found this (attached PDF) brochure via a link at my blog:

http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=1976100

Scroll down to the second section starting at:

"September 9, 2012 - One of the most misunderstood things

about government is the true power of taxation that was
delegated to it in the Constitution."

and that I reverified the link there at:

 3

Also:
http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/
NutshellLargePamphlet.pdf

The brochure is actually two pages that are layed out horizontally
with a fold so that these can be printed double-sided on a single
sheet of paper and folded in half. This is the "nutshell"!

Hope you can "look it up" before the end of the year.

Cheers!

***
8/20/16 -

Following is an expanded version of the "nutshell" (after seeing

it's duplication here:
https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/title-26-is-not-the-
internal-revenue-code/)

Plain Facts About The Income Tax That The Government, Your
Tax Attorney, Your Favorite Pundit And Many Others Don't Want
You To Know

Please read the following material carefully, including the notes at

the end, and then share it widely. Links to documentation of every
assertion and quote can be found in the more complete
presentation at http://losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htm.
All emphases are added.

HERE ARE SOME PLAIN FACTS about the nature of the income
tax. Anything you've ever heard or had suggested to you about
the tax which does not conform to each and every one of these
facts is simply not true, no matter how or by whom it was said or
suggested to you.
 4

What you're going to see proven in the compilation below is that:

1. The income tax is an excise;

2. Excise taxes are taxes on privilege;

3. The preceding facts about the income tax cannot change,

because a tax on UN-privileged activities (or the gains therefrom)
is a capitation or other direct tax, and the Constitution prohibits
capitations and other direct taxes (other than by apportionment);
and

4. The prohibition on unapportioned capitations and other direct

taxes has never changed, even by action of the Sixteenth
Amendment.

Then we'll follow with some discussion of what these facts mean
and why this is all very important to you and your kids. Here we
go:

1. The tax is an excise:

"[The] tax upon gains, profits, and income [is] an excise or duty,
and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and []
its imposition [is] not, therefore, unconstitutional."

United States Supreme Court, Springer v. U. S., 102 U.S. 586

(1880) (as summarized in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 158
U.S. 601, (1895))

"[T]axation on income [is] in its nature an excise..."

A unanimous United States Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union

Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
 5

"I hereby certify that the following is a true and faithful statement
of the gains, profits, or income of _____ _____, of the _____ of
_____, in the county of _____, and State of _____, whether
derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends,
salary, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, or
from any other source whatever, from the 1st day of January to
the 31st day of December, 1862, both days inclusive, and subject
to an income tax under the excise laws of the United States."

The affirmation on the first income tax return form.

The whole body of internal revenue law in effect on January 2,

1939... ...has its ultimate origin in 164 separate enactments of
Congress. The earliest of these was approved July 1, 1862; the
latest, June 16, 1938."

Preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code

"The income tax... ...is an excise tax with respect to certain

activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the
income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

Former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse

Hubbard in testimony before Congress in 1943

2. Excise taxes are taxes on privilege:

"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of

privilege."

United States Supreme Court, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.,, 220 U.S.
107 (1911)

The terms excise tax and 'privilege tax are synonymous and the
two are often used interchangeably.
 6

American Airways, Inc. v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880 (M.D. Tenn.

1937)

"PRIVILEGE: A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a

person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of
other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power of
exemption. A particular right, advantage, exemption, power,
franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally
possessed by others.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition

The 'Government' is an abstraction, and its possession of

property largely constructive. Actual possession and custody of
Government property nearly always are in someone who is not
himself the Government but acts in its behalf and for its purposes.
He may be an officer, an agent, or a contractor. His personal
advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit, or
beneficial personal use of the property may be taxed...

United States Supreme Court, United States v. County of

Allegheny, 322 US 174 (1944)

3. These facts about the tax cannot change, because a tax on

UN-privileged activities (or the gains therefrom) is a capitation or
other direct tax, and the Constitution prohibits capitations and
other direct taxes (other than by apportionment):

"[A tax laid] according to what is supposed to be [an unprivileged

payer's] fortune, by an assessment which varies from year to year
[is a capitation]."

Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the

Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. II, Art. IV (1776)
 7

"Art. I. Sect. 9. "no capitation tax shall be laid, unless &c"

Mr Read moved to insert after "capitation" the words. "or other

direct tax" He was afraid that some liberty might otherwise be
taken to saddle the States with a readjustment by this rule, of past
Requisitions of Congs - and that his amendment by giving another
cast to the meaning would take away the pretext. Mr Williamson
2ded. the motion, which was agreed to, On motion of Col: Mason
"or enumeration" inserted after, as explanatory of "Census" (Con.
& S. C. only. no.)"

James Madison, Notes of the Constitutional Convention

"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in

Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed
to be taken."

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

"CAPITATION, A poll tax; an imposition which is yearly laid on

each person according to his estate and ability."

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (1856). (The official law

dictionary of Congress when the income tax was enacted.)

"'[B]y direct taxes in the constitution, those are meant which are
raised on the capital or revenue of the people;...' [T]he framers of
the [Constitution] had [Adam Smith's definition of 'capitation'] in
view at the time, and ... by direct taxes, meant those paid directly
from the falling immediately on the revenue;...'"

United States Supreme Court, Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust,

157 U.S. 429 (1895)

"Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the

possession and enjoyments of rights;
 8

United States Supreme Court, Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41

(1900)

"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an

inalienable right It has been well said that the property which
every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of
all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The
patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his
own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and
dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his
neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. Smith,
Wealth of Nations, Bk. I, c. 10.

United States Supreme Court, Butchers Union Co. v. Crescent

City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)

"Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private

property- partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make
contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such
contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and
other services are exchanged for money or other forms of
property

United States Supreme Court, Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1

(1915)

"Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging

to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege.

Jack Cole Company v. Alfred T. MacFarland, Commissioner, 337

S.W.2d 453 (1960)

4. The prohibition on unapportioned capitations and other direct

taxes has never changed, even by action of the Sixteenth
Amendment:
 9

"[The Sixteenth] amendment made it possible to bring investment

income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not
change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise
or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or
owning any property which produces income."

Former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse

Hubbard in testimony before Congress in 1943

"The Amendment, the [Supreme] court said, judged by the

purpose for which it was passed, does not treat income taxes as
direct taxes but simply removed the ground which led to their
being considered as such in the Pollock case, namely, the source
of the income. Therefore, they are again to be classified in the
class of indirect taxes to which they by nature belong."

Cornell Law Quarterly, 1 Cornell L. Q. 298 (1915-16)

(The Pollock court had reasoned that even though otherwise

proper subjects of an excise tax, a tax on privilege-based
dividends and rent was functionally a tax on the personal property
from which the gains were derived-- the stock and real estate--
and therefore was really a direct tax. The Sixteenth Amendment
says that the "source" can no longer be considered in this way. If
something is "income" in the sense meant in the income tax-- that
is, a gain from a privilege-based, and thus excisable activity-- it
can be taxed as such without regard to the source from which it is
derived.)

"In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White,

upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913,
construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is
"indirect," rather than as making an exception to the rule that
direct taxes must be apportioned."
 10

Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 536 (1915-16)

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White,

first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any
new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of
Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were,
notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still
subject to the rule of apportionment"

Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the Library of

Congress Howard M. Zaritsky in his 1979 Report No. 80-19A,
entitled 'Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal
Income Tax Laws'

"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has

no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in
recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or
excepted subjects..."

U.S. Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

"[T]he settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers

no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without
apportionment something which theretofore could not have been
properly regarded as [unapportioned-excise taxable] income."

U.S. Supreme Court, Taft v. Bowers, 278 US 470, 481 (1929)

"[T]he sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove

the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were
otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id. at 2539;
see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1240 U. S.
17-18 (1916)"

U.S. Supreme Court, So. Carolina v. Baker, , 485 U.S. 505 (1988)
 11

5. So, it really doesn't matter at all what the tax is called (whether
"excise" or not). Nor does it matter what the State wants you to
believe about it. The tax CAN only be Constitutionally-applied as
an excise-- meaning to privileged activities, measured by the
gains they produce. Were it to be applied to UN-privileged
activities it would be a capitation or other direct tax and require
apportionment.

In happy fact, the tax IS confined to privileged activities, as

written-- scrupulously so. It's just that it is written by geniuses of
legal deception, and defended by scoundrels who take full
advantage of its deceptive design.

YOU'VE BEEN FOOLED, PEOPLE (and man, has it cost you in

wealth and liberty and security)!

The income tax is what it always has been, both before and after
the Sixteenth Amendment: a tax on federally-granted privilege. It
is not a tax on money, or making or receiving money, or anything
but profitably exercising a federally-granted privilege.

That the tax has been effectively applied to non-privileged things

(like your earnings) is a consequence of a clever statutory design
by which common, actually-untaxable gains can be made to
appear to be of the privileged, taxable variety (and the willingness
of an always-revenue-hungry state to exploit your ignorance of
that design and how it works).

You have even been made to legally (if unknowingly and

unintentionally) agree that your actually unprivileged, untaxable
gains are of the taxable sort.

Do you remember in 'The Incredibles' how the insurance

company where Mr. Incredible was working had things carefully
set up so everyone who dealt with the company was thoroughly
 12

exploited by its convoluted procedures and fine print? That's how

the tax laws are set up.

But when you learn what the exploiters hope you won't,
everything changes.

Tens of thousands of your neighbors have learned. They've been

getting all their money back for many years now.

The government hates this and strives mightily with all manner of
corrupt practices from the bowels of its deep and dark armory to
keep you from learning the liberating truth and cutting through the
bs, too. Part of this effort has involved a lot of shooting, smearing,
demonizing, and marginalizing the messenger and message,
including by way of a handful of judicial proceedings deploying
evasions calculated to give the appearance of opposition while
actually constituting admissions, such as those discussed here
and here.

There are others who would rather you didn't know the truth, also.
Pundits who make a living complaining about the size of the
government; tax attorneys; CPAs; "tax reform" advocates; and
even many folks who present themselves as "tax honesty
crusaders" don't want you to know. Knowing the truth about the
tax, you will no longer buy what they're selling, just as you will no
longer lose up to half your hard-earned wealth to a dangerously
over-fed State.

Go to http://losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htm now and

get the whole story. Or turn out your pockets and go back into
your coma... copper-top. You and your kids will end up eaten alive
by Leviathan (or, more accurately, spoon-fed in ever-more
pathetic and contemptible bits and pieces to its clients), and you'll
have no one to blame but yourself.
 13

NOTES: Any construction of any aspect of the tax which would

produce a result inconsistent with the above facts is a manifest
misconstruction. For instance, any construction of the nature of
what is taxed, or the meaning or effect of "includes", or of
"privileged", which brings all economic activity or its products into
the class of taxable events or taxed objects is self-evidently
incorrect.

This is so, however cleverly the misconstruction may be

defended. Any construction with the effect of imposing or justifying
an unapportioned capitation or other direct tax is manifestly
unconstitutional, even if teasing or arguing out just where the
mistakes are being made gives you a headache or is beyond your
abilities altogether. You don't need to be able to argue,
understand or defend the relevant physics or the geometry to be
able to confidently say that the Earth is not flat.

***

The same principle discussed above applies to "tax honesty"

arguments that the tax only falls on corporations, or foreigners, or
citizens, or residents, or the use or receipt of Federal Reserve
notes, or is interlinked with the UCC, or (to put it succinctly) any
construction or argument that the tax is anything other than what
it is revealed to be in 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth
About Taxation In America'. Such notions are just as incompatible
with one or more of the facts shown above as is the myth that the
tax falls on all economic activity, and thus just as self-evidently
incorrect.

***

Some unscrupulous beneficiaries/defenders of the misapplication

of the tax have argued that certain of the Supreme Court rulings
cited and excerpted above, such as Butcher's Union v. Crescent
 14

City are not actually tax-specific cases. This is pure evasion

masquerading as criticism.

Butcher's Union is not cited as evidence that the Supreme Court

has specifically said that common occupations are not taxable
other than by apportionment. The case doesn't say this, directly.

Indeed, it is often difficult or impossible to find court rulings which

declare the obvious or uncontroversial directly. This is no surprise;
after all, what would be the occasion for such a declaration? Has
any court ever found itself needing to hold that the Sun rises in
the East (so to speak)?

But Butcher's Union DOES acknowledge that common

occupations are a matter of right. That fact (which we don't really
need any court to tell us, but why not use it when it is there?)
conjoins with Knowlton v. Moore's observation that a tax on the
enjoyment of a right is a direct tax, thus requiring apportionment
as specified in Article 1, Sec. 9, and with all the Supreme Court
rulings declaring that apportionment requirement to continue,
even after the Sixteenth Amendment. Taken all together, these
are a body of judicial acknowledgement that under the US
Constitution a federal tax on common economic activities
engaged in by right (or the product thereof) can only be laid per
the apportionment rule.

P. S. Do you think taking care of the misapplication of the tax

doesn't matter? Why It Matters.

P. P. S. By the way, the systematic exploitation of the income tax's

confusing design to apply it to unprivileged activities only began in
the 1940s. Do you want to see what happened when it did? Click
here.

P. P. P. S. This is a very important article with powerful truth-

spreading potential. PLEASE share it widely, especially with folks
 15

outside the CtC community and especially with those in the media
and the legal profession. Copy the whole thing, from the title
through these words, and paste it into your emails to others. If you
are only able to share a link, it is http://losthorizons.com/
MidEditionUpdate.htm#1.

***
8/23/16 -

This "Teaching" needs to extend to the presidential candidates.[1]

***
Also - Continuing with the vigilance (in the following comment)
regarding our original "Organic" status: "free inhabitant" regarding
the single term "habitants" as it was used in : "The Second
Summit British Government Gratitude Explained" by Judge
Anna von Reitz and that was posted on August 22, 2016 by David
Robinson[3]

My comment posted on August 23, 2016:

Thanks for the link![4]

This is a most excellent presentation - except for one thing:

"... - there were two populations left on this continent at the end of
the Revolutionary War: 'free, sovereign, and independent people'
and 'inhabitants' --- British subjects left here to provide
governmental services."

I'd like to feel free to quote the entire presentation however I'm
concerned that the use of the term "inhabitants" at least partly
clouds a most essential understanding of the phrase: "free
inhabitants" as per Articles of Confederation at Article IV. I invite
any light that could possibly shed no this.[2]

In Gratitude,
 16

Chef Jemichel

***
8/26/16 -

The teaching also needs to extend to the candidates for the office
of Representative to the United States House of Representatives.
[6]

***
8/31/16 -

I've made a number of comments over the years about the

problem with government schools and especially in regards to
fully disclosing the foundation of the people's sovereignty, both
collectively and as individuals, over all government. The following
article explains this problem as it is now codified in the United
States legal system.

How Did We Get A Federal School Curriculum?

By Phyllis Schlafly
2-14-2002

Behind frequent protestations by public officials about local

control of the schools, a federal curriculum has been quietly
imposed by law. All the pieces are now in place for this major goal
of the Clinton administration.

Elementary and secondary school education used to be

organized around subjects such as reading, math, history,
geography, language and science. While smatterings of those
subjects are still taught, the focus has been shifted from academic
subject matter to teaching attitudes, beliefs, values, themes,
behaviors and job skills.
 17

This is indoctrination, not education. Left-wing professors write

the textbooks and the teachers unions control the public schools,
so the ideology is what those groups deem politically correct.

And it's all hiding behind that good conservative word "standards."
Who could possibly be against standards?

Two of the three 1994 Bill Clinton laws, Goals 2000, which defines
the goals, and School-to-Work, which prescribes the shift from
academics to job skills, were touted as "voluntary." The third 1994
law, the appropriations reauthorization (known to many as H.R.
6), tied the knot, warning that schools would not get any federal
money unless they conform to the other two laws.

In a remarkable inclusion of special-interest legislation, the third

law named and funded a private organization, the Center for Civic
Education (CCE), to develop the national standards for teaching
civics and government. This cozy relationship was reconfirmed in
the 2002 education law called Leave No Child Behind and means
that CCE is empowered, with the force of federal law and a
stream of taxpayers' money, to decide what is taught in our
nation's schools about civics and government.

CCE produced a 180-page volume called "National Standards for

Civics and Government,"[8] plus textbooks, teacher's guides and
other materials for elementary, middle and high school levels.
This great quantity of words is short on facts but long on
inculcating attitudes.

CCE's textbook called "We the People: the Citizen and the
Constitution" admits a peculiar aversion to facts: "The primary
purpose of this text is not to fill your head with a lot of facts about
American history and geography. Knowledge of the facts is
important but only insofar as it deepens your understanding of the
American Constitutional system and its development."
 18

"Deepens your understanding," that is, of a prescribed worldview

without cluttering your mind with hard facts about American
history and what's actually in the U.S. Constitution. For example,
the fact that the U.S. Constitution contains a Second Amendment
doesn't exist in the book called "Standards."

This is curious because, while the federal law was vague about
the content of the standards CCE was empowered to write, the
law was very specific in demanding instruction on the Bill of
Rights. Many pages of "Standards" are devoted to the Bill of
Rights but, funny thing, the Second Amendment is completely
censored out.

The 180 pages of "Standards," of course, contain much that is

informative, but the information is peripheral to the selling of a
political agenda designed to change the student rather than
educate him. The book admits that "Standards" is trying to teach
"certain dispositions or traits of character."

One major theme is a put-down of allegiance to national

sovereignty. Professor Allen Quist of Bethany Lutheran College
made a word count and discovered that the book contains only
eight references to national sovereignty, but 17 references to the
environment, 42 references to diversity, and 42 to
multiculturalism.

When "Standards" listed the seven "fundamental values" of the

United States, national sovereignty didn't make the cut, but
diversity did.

Six of the eight mentions of national sovereignty use the same

curious wording: "The world is divided into nation-states that claim
sovereignty over a defined territory and jurisdiction over everyone
within it."
 19

Do we only "claim" national sovereignty, or is it a historical fact

that we won our national sovereignty in a War of Independence
and we jolly well need it to protect ourselves against foreign
aggressors. The words "divided into" imply that maybe it would be
better if we were not "divided" into countries, phrasing that is a
favorite of those who advocate global government.

CCE's "Standards" puts two government purposes on equivalent

levels: "the protection of the rights of individuals and the
promotion of the common good." The words "common good" are
repeated over and over again in this book, but they are not in our
Constitution.

"The common good" can mean whatever a totalitarian

government wants it to mean. Our Founders never would have
ranked "common good" as an equal value with our individual
rights.

The last page of "Standards" gives its final advice to the students:
Citizens have "the ability to reaffirm or change fundamental
constitutional values." Is that what a federal curriculum is all about
-- changing our constitutional values?

2002 Copley News Service townhall.com[7]

"Due Diligence" (as indicated in Footnote 8) - Re: the

"Standards":

Quoting the PDF of 9-12 Standards[9]

"The constitutional values and principles held by Americans

provide the foundation for their attitudes regarding the proper
ends and means of political life. They have shaped American
political institutions and practices.
 20

In addition to experience, several intellectual traditions have

influenced the development of American constitutional
democracy. Among the most important of these were the ideas of
classical liberalism with its emphasis on individual rights and
classical republicanism. Throughout most of our history, the ideas
associated with liberalism have been dominant. These ideas
emerged in the seventeenth century and were further developed
during the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. The view that the
individual, possessing certain inalienable rights, is the basic unit
of society is the fundamental element of classical liberal thought.
Classical liberalism includes the ideas that governments are
created by the people to protect their inalienable rights to life,
liberty, and property and derive their authority from the consent of
the governed. The Declaration of Independence is a succinct
statement of the central ideas of classical liberalism."

If I were teaching American Civics and Government I would be

asking a lot of questions of my students. Just in the above quoted
paragraphs I'd start with questions re: "American constitutional
democracy". I.e. Where in the four Organic Laws can you find the
term "democracy"?

Re: "inalienable rights" -

Interesting to me that I've recently posted on this phrase how it is
a compromise of the phrase "unalienable Rights" as it is written in
the Declaration of Independence". The two phrases have different
meanings. The later one is the superior one. The distinction of
terms is pronounced when reading "inalienable rights to life,
liberty, and property" when in the Declaration of Independence we
read:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness."
 21

What's really curious to me is that Civic Ed.org includes

"unalienable rights" as a term in their "Terms to Know"[10] yet
claims that inalienable is the superior term. I'm sticking with what
the Declaration of Independence actually says!

Also -

Continuing with the above focus - I sent the following (to an email
address listed at the website in Footnote 7 however it bounced):

Greetings!

Thank you for "The People's Voice"!

Just discovered your site via an article search from a forward I

received from Paycheck Piracy.

I appreciate your links under:

"DO YOU KNOW

United States Constitution

Declaration of Independence
The Bill of Rights
Constitution Basics"

Good to see the "Declaration of Independence" along with the

"United States Constitution", etc. I am a student of the Organic
Laws Institute with the senior instructor Dr. Ed Rivera. Are you
familiar with Ed Rivera? As far as I know he is the only professor
in America who teaches a basic course in government wholly
based upon the four Organic Laws. In light of this teaching - we
need to have the perspective of the four Organic Laws in order to
understand several essential matters presented in the
"Constitution of September 17, 1787". I am happy to share more
about this if you like.
 22

Looking forward to the possibility of hearing from you!

Toward Greater Freedom!

~Chef Jemichel

***
9/12/16 -

Letter in regards to a new California law (concerning medical

weed) to a friend who says: "I do not consent".

I certainly appreciate your educational outreach in regards to

"Notices" and especially concerning the free-will nature of each
individual's "Consent". I think we agree that none of us ever got
informed about this legal reality during any of our government-
controlled school days (can read: "daze" ; ~ )

I wish to add another essential point: the proprietary-based

limitations of government jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of California
government is Lawfully limited by its Constitution. "The California
Constitution ... is subordinate to the Constitution of the United
States, which is the supreme law of the land."[1] The Constitution
of the United States(sic)[2] is limited to lands, territories,
possessions, buildings and the like that it owns. In other words all
government jurisdiction is strictly proprietary-based. Without this
understanding individuals are not standing most securely on the
foundation of Organic Law!

The Constitution of September 17, 1787 defines what Lawful

jurisdiction is. That jurisdiction is limited to what the States have
given to that Constitution's government. It is a proprietary-based
jurisdiction just as it is stated in terms of its exclusive Legislative
jurisdiction. See: Article I, Section 8, (par.17) To exercise
exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) ... and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
 23

State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful
Buildings; ...".

Therefore California laws include the proprietary-based

jurisdiction limitations of "the United States Constitution".[4]

Therefore "The price for freedom from external government is:

speaking the truth about the government's proprietary-based
jurisdiction."[3]

For those who understand that all government jurisdiction is and

must be proprietary based (that includes every "Act" passed by
the California State legislature) they can consider adding "for
cause" and/or "lack of authority" to their non-consent reply.

Toward greater freedom!

~Chef
@ San Diego

***
9/19/16 -

More re: the Organic Laws:

"... The government is operating deceptively by using a governing

document, the Articles of Confederation, alleged by government,
educators and the media to be repealed. The government is using
the Constitution to confuse government territory (that can be
identified as the "United States") with the United States of
America. Once the governments deceptive techniques are
learned, future governmental attempts at deception will be less
successful until they will become obsolete."[11]

***
 24

9/22/16 -

"... though the Congress of the United states would like it to be

forgotten, it is the work of liberty loving people to study and revive
the memory and usage of all the Organic Laws, to discredit the
whoredoms of Congress and bring it to heel by the limits to
territorial jurisdiction admitted by Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 1 &17."[12]

Also: "... It is we, who are sovereign, who inherited the land, by
birthright, and it was not the United States of America, precisely
because it was our forefathers blood, sacrifice and honor in
defending the Declaration of Independence that won the land
from King George III. We who are sovereigns must hold very
clearly our spiritual and lawful relationship to land which we
inherited by birthright as a free people in consequence of our
winning the War of Independence. "
***********^***********
Notes:

[1] http://eepurl.com/ccGJ6r

[2] https://pamsamazingjourney.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-
second-summit-british-government.html?
showComment=1472016473625#c2952764322790385215

[3] 172a3-judge2banna

[4] ttps://mainerepublicemailalert.com/2016/08/22/the-second-
summit-british-government-gratitude-explained/

[5] http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/
organiclaws&edition=prelim

[6] http://us10.campaign-archive2.com/?
u=f8e38d415be497134eee68415&id=74d26fb96e&e=a0fab7067b
 25

The assertions of "the two different and separate offices of the

Article I legislative President of the United States with the Article II
executive President of the United States of America" as presented
by Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera to his "Students and Subscribers"
deserves to be examined first hand by the reader of this blogpost
as well as the assertion for "The express separate restrictions and
conditions on the impeachment of an Article I President of the
United States from that of an Article II President". The
Impeachment restrictions of the former "President" can be found
in the last clause before Section 4 of Article I and that of the later
at Section 4 of Article II.

[7] American News - Wednesday, August 31, 2016

"Your Source For Keeping An Eye On Big Brother"
http://www.angelfire.com/retro/voices/page2.html#1902

[8] I intend to search for this online in order to do my due diligence

on the issue.

[9] http://www.civiced.org/images/stories/PDFs/Publications/
National_Standards/National_Standards_9-12.pdf

[10] http://www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/911-and-the-
constitution/terms-to-know#unalienablerights

[11] http://www.edrivera.com/?page_id=2

[12] https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-
the-united-states-of-america/
***********^***********
Keywords:

The United States of America, organic laws, free inhabitant,

united states code, National Standards for Civics and
Government, Center for Civic Education, Leave No Child Behind,
Goals 2000, We the People, Citizen, Constitution, united states.