Do the Fed’s Really Own the Land in Nevada? Nope!

Armstrong Economics Blog ^ | April 19, 2014 | Martin Armstrong

[BreezyDog]

Reference

[John Valentine]

...and so did not reference the US corporate jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment, which was passed in 1868. Nevada was made a State in 1864, and so was not made under the corporate auspices of the 14th Amendment. However there are two "Nevadas" - the original sovereign State called "Nevada," and the federal corporate "State of Nevada."

This is a decidedly odd, even bizarre, interpretation of the 14th, and is most assuredly wrong, and profoundly so.

There is no such thing as a "federal corporate state" established under the 14th amendment, whether applied distinctly to the Nevada, or to any other State, as would have to be the case if your view were correct.

[MamaTexan]

There is no such thing as a "federal corporate state" established under the 14th amendment, whether applied distinctly to the Nevada, or to any other State, as would have to be the case if your view were correct.

If I may, I believe Talisker is speaking of the way the federal government has prostituted contract law by using the 14th Amendment as a vehicle to create an extra-Constitutional corporate 'citizen of the United States' outside its areas of enumerated jurisdiction. Of course, the People have been educated for generations now that's what they are. They no longer understand their Birthright lies in the Citizenship of their State.

---

QUICK! In before the "she's off her rocker!" posts

These 2 cases:
Quoting United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey , 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky , 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

Say the same thing Story said when writing of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17...or the federal enclave

§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

Natural Rights lie in Natural law, and out Natural Allegiance belongs to our respective States.

--------

Not meaning to snark at you, Mr. Valentine. It's just that, as wild as it sounds, it's the only logical conclusion that fits...everything. Occam's Razor, and all that.

[ronnyquest]

That is just so sleazy and unethical. But, it is another reminder of how broken we are as a whole.

[Talisker]

You are all forgeting something profoundly important - the government does not have to prove that a human being is acting in official corporate capacity before treating them as if they are, and it does not have to notify them that they are being so treated when it does.

I am NOT saying that the 14th Amendment imposes corporate personhood, nor that it actually creates a corporate state. What I am saying is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can act as if these things are true unless and until it is specifically refuted on these presumptions. And therefore, it makes every effort not to admit that these are the presumptions under which it is operating.

Because in fact, it IS operating as if these presumptions of corporate authority and corporate status are true. And it DOES use very specific terms of art linked to these definitions of corporate status when it files against people in court. These are just operational facts of the legal system.

The problem is not corporations or corporate law. The problem is the allowance of the SECRET PRESUMPTION of this status against people. If that way denied, if the government had to PROVE corporate status before it inviked its corporate statutes and regulations, ALL of this abuse would stop immediately, because IT DOESN’T APPLY.

But you have to know WHAT doesn’t apply, before you can stop it from being applied.

[Talisker]

If I may, I believe Talisker is speaking of the way the federal government has prostituted contract law by using the 14th Amendment as a vehicle to create an extra-Constitutional corporate 'citizen of the United States' outside its areas of enumerated jurisdiction. Of course, the People have been educated for generations now that's what they are. They no longer understand their Birthright lies in the Citizenship of their State.

Yep, and thank you very much for the citations. As well, remember that these definitions are allwoed to be "presumed" against people without first being proven, and then as if that's not bad enough, this presumption is allowed to be kept secret from those against whom it is presumed. So people are completely in the dark about what is going on legallly against them.

It is as if the plumbing code was being used against a person, and they were being evicted from their home for not wearing a hard hat at the dinner table, because the plumbing code specified that hard hats must be worn anywhere seated work involving knives took place, and the regulations mandated a shut-down and eviction from the premises if those rules were not followed.

In fact, is is EXACTLY like that. And all someone has to do is say, "wait a minute, I'm not a freaking incorporated plumber doing plumbing work in my home at my dinner table, so this doesn't apply to me" - but they CAN'T, because they don't know that that is what is being applied to them. And for those who DO figure it out, the court says, "well, you SHOWED UP in "plumbing court" to make your protest, so therefore, by BEING HERE you're admitting to being a plumber, because that's the only people in plumbing court, and so you are LYING about not being a plumber and I'm citing you for contempt and seizing your home in penalties and interest."

THAT is not only tax court, but almost any other court these days. FOR REAL.

[DoodleDawg]

The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000.

Since the population of Oregon in 1860 was only about 52,500 and it became a state in 1859 then I assume that "law" is in quotes because there really was no such law?

[MamaTexan]

So people are completely in the dark about what is going on legally against them.

Not only does silence imply consent, so does compliance.

Your quite welcome for the citations, BTW. I'll admit I was hesitant to respond to the poster simply because so few people 'get' this, much less how thoroughly they've been indoctrinated to DISbelieve it.

I am heartily glad, however, to discover that we're on the same page.

Best Regards!
MamaTexan

[Political Junkie Too]

I thought that only authorized Washington DC and any forts, etc. only from the same states that granted the land for DC.

-PJ

[Mechanicos]

Do you see such a limitation in the language of that Section? Neither did the court when it decided Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan - 44 U.S. 212 (1845).

The Constitution Limits the Federal Government and should always be read as such.

[Political Junkie Too]

Absolutely I do.

---

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

---

What do you think the phrase "of the State in which the Same shall be" means? Doesn't mean the same states which gave up the land for the district, so that the federal government can also build forts, arsenals, etc., for the protection of the new seat of government?

This was meant to only allow the federal government to own additional lands in the state in which the seat of federak government shall be. It was not a general power for the federal government to acquire lands anywhere it felt it "needful."

-PJ

[Mechanicos]

Thats an absurd reading and already rejected in the case cited.

[Hot Tabasco]

Ping for prosperity

[freekitty]

Figures. Try tracing a deed or title. Some just disappear off the face of the earth in NV.