digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

"The Two United States and the Law"

supremelaw.org — Less than one hundred years after we became a nation, a loophole was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league with the international bankers. They realized that a separate nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This "United States" is a Legislative Democracy...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • LoneRanger85, on 05/26/2008, -42/+13THAT explains why it's legal to slaughter millions of unborn babies and illegal to pray or carry a gun! I'm living in the wrong country!!! Could I have driving instructions to the right one?
    • quesi, on 05/26/2008, -3/+3Just follow the big blue hexagram, Masked Man, and you'll be home in no time.
    • quesi, on 05/26/2008, -3/+3Hi-O Silver!
    • lazerus9, on 05/26/2008, -2/+10Go back to DC shill.
      • LoneRanger85, on 05/27/2008, -3/+2SHOO!
      • astronomical, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1Judging by the first sentence on his profile page, I'd say you don't know what a shill is.
        • lazerus9, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Using your logic you must enjoy starting fires.
    • livegreenordie, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1 Does Hillary know about this?
    • Terr01, on 05/26/2008, -1/+5Yes, take four lefts and you'll be back in the padded room.
    • hmunkey, on 05/27/2008, -3/+6First of all, not millions of unborn fetuses are aborted. Secondly, banning it would just increase back room abortions, which can also kill the mother.

      You are allowed to carry a firearm, provided it's reasonable and you aren't insane. Carrying a fully automatic 900 rounds per minute rifle is just a little over the top.

      Praying is fine, but don't force it in schools. Not everyone prays or prays the same way.

      Oh, and this article doesn't explain any of that.
      • jcm267, on 05/27/2008, -2/+3"Carrying a fully automatic 900 rounds per minute rifle is just a little over the top."
        Not really. Not at all.
    • fasda, on 05/27/2008, -2/+3A time machine with the setting of "more bigotry"
  • quesi, on 05/26/2008, -6/+19Masked Man (Lenny Bruce reference, of course) beat me to the first comment... Funny thing is that even if he thought he was Evelyn Wood, he couldn't have read the article so fast. In fact, I know he didn't.

    The article is a theory proposed by some folks. I think a lot of it makes sense, but also find some flawed thinking and it's a little repetitive. Then of course, the owner of the site (I feel is close to brilliant) has been slammed/smeared a bunch - which is quite telling. Check out his work "The Federal Zone" (send him a couple bucks if you like it). Funny, that's where McScrewTheUnitedStates was born - which is why he's not a Natural Born Citizen. Different jurisdiction.

    Patriots (I wouldn't be speaking of the Masked Man, you know) may find it interesting.
    • LoneRanger85, on 05/26/2008, -13/+5It's called HUMOR. You should try it some time. And, yes, I DID take the Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics course early in my career to help me plow through reams of news copy. I can read a book at about one page per second with about 95% retention. Just another thing for you to admire about me.
      • quesi, on 05/26/2008, -3/+7Don't give up your day job.
        Maybe you should read it again to be sure you understand. Hey, it turns out you have something in common with McAlien! Federal Zone residents, both. Alien to the Union. Have fun with Tanta... Hi-O Silver!
        • LoneRanger85, on 05/27/2008, -3/+6Is this really who you are? Are you really such a petty, hateful person? Do you really hold people in contempt simple because they don't believe what you believe? Is this what you will pass on to your children? What went wrong in your life to turn you into what you are? Why aren't you trying to improve yourself? In addition to humor, you should also try tolerance and love sometime. And, if you can't manage love, at least friendliness would help.
        • quesi, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2Please accept my apology.
    • lazerus9, on 05/26/2008, -1/+4This ranger guy is a shill "Q" He has wandered in from WND.
  • AlwaysAwake, on 05/26/2008, -5/+16Must be a patriot too. I found it interesting, with a lot of extra details about what I was alreay aware of, and a few surprises too.
  • stienster, on 05/26/2008, -5/+18Holy God!! Now THAT was an easy, relaxing read... Thanks (I think) for this IMMENSE information. Did anyone learn this in their higher education?- I didn't nor ever anywhere hear of it. I truly hope there are some patriot attorneys who can comment and give us a hand on where we should be using UCC 1-103:6, 207, etc.
    • sgiffy, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4If you want to get laughed at in court do what the article says. Otherwise you could start by actually reading the UCC. The comments to 207 et al should be rather insightful.

      By the way the UCC is state law and is not really uniform, though mostly so.
  • Surferess, on 05/26/2008, -5/+11I learned a lot. I have had entire courses where I didn't get this much valid information. This would be a good resource to remember.
    • lazerus9, on 05/26/2008, -3/+9Some one keeps digging you down. I guess they hate people being awakened!
  • lazerus9, on 05/26/2008, -5/+9Good article.
    We did not win the revolutionary war! Treaties were signed and the mentally disturbed King George III was placated for a time as long as the US continued to pay tribute/money and recognized that we were still serf/subjects of his Kingdom. Those of us in the Patriot movement have been aware of the truth for many years and though believing that lawful redress will turn things around, you are deluding yourselves.
    Here is some additional material:http://www.detaxcanada.org/cmlaw1.htm
    • CptBuck, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4We did win the revolutionary war.
    • Derelict267, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3You are delusional. Please seek help at your nearest psychiatric facility.
      • lazerus9, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2Another little Zionist video game player has reached out for attention.
  • Rabbittt, on 05/26/2008, -3/+16There are two CONCEPTS, you see, the little u and the big U.. The united States (little u) is the individual States of the Union, come together, united.. The United States (big U) is the corporation defined in the Constitution that is to ENFORCE and PROTECT the rights of the united States (little u).. These concepts and their joint meaning have been obliterated by the United States (big U), who has through history stolen and finagled the greater power from the united States (little u)..

    And this will continue, unabated, until the big U has total and complete control over the little u.. The servant becomes the master, you see.. Oh, and to all those who help this continue, thanks, really..
    • fasda, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1well there is also an import considerations, which I think you may have neglected, of the evolution of transportation, communication. Both of these areas have improved drastically over time since the start of the republic. As these areas improved the states individual economies have become more and more intertwined while at the start of the republic the states had been able to be very separate from each other. As the states the increased their interconectedness increased the need for uniformity across the country had to increase. Also the improvements in communications and transportation increased the ability for the federal government to be an effective form of government across the long distances of the country. So the net effect of these changes in not that the servants are now the masters but a change in the people's servants from the states to the federal government.
    • thall, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Isn't it the left wing that typically pushes for that sort of thing? I.e. they want a law so bad that they demand it be passed at the federal level, and that individual states would not have the right to override it?
  • Pitofdoom, on 05/26/2008, -6/+4When did any of you think "we the people" stopped reporting to caesar ?
  • n0gnuz, on 05/26/2008, -1/+4Um, has any of this ever been debated anywhere -- or is this only found on the various web articles of 'Howard Freeman?'
    • Dzonatas, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Yes it has been debated elsewhere. Search for UCC, area 51, and traffic court. I say this article takes the more extreme approach on the rules, but the basics is that the UCC was created to make court system a separate jurisdiction (area 51) from the state itself. I have a comment further down about the area 51 bit.
  • nosecohn, on 05/26/2008, -0/+8The article is interesting, but it does seem like a lot of dissimilar events tied together by inference and then presented as fact. I would like to read a countering position.
  • mytealjacket, on 05/26/2008, -1/+6Any lawyers on here what to share their opinions on this? Also a brief summary to recap would be nice too.
    • sgiffy, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6Its hard to refute because there is little substance to it. most stems from not reading statute concurrently and making inferences were it is not justified. For example UCC 207 has nothing to do with reserving the rights the author asserts. Instead its about, when in a dispute, one party tenders payment or performance. Without reservation that tender or acceptance can operate as a waiver of rights under the contract at issue. 207 allows for this to happen, while also reserving any rights a party may have. For example in a price dispute.

      Also Congress did not pass or even right the UCC. Instead it was group of various lawyers who did so. It was then adopted by the states. It is also not really uniform as there are different versions adopted by different states. All it really does is make it easier for parties to do interstate commerce without having to learn 50 completely different sets of law and draft very complex agreements.
    • CptBuck, on 05/27/2008, -2/+8You don't need to be a lawyer to know that this is complete *****. There is no constitutional loophole that created two separate united states' operated by one congress.
  • prompel, on 05/26/2008, -7/+2I'm waiting for the Supreme Court to speak out on this issue.

    ... actually, I don't really care.
  • allengeer, on 05/26/2008, -5/+7wow this is worthless.
  • philodygmn, on 05/27/2008, -3/+2This places Mike Gravel's National Initiative establishing a people's government alongside the Congress into perspective. Does Gravel even know about this?
  • Slices, on 05/27/2008, -4/+3You gotta love legal loopholes - unless they're tied up around your neck, that is.
  • sgiffy, on 05/27/2008, -1/+8Sorry but no. All this is is a misreading of statue, a poor understanding of common law, and a weird obsession with symbolism. Not to mention a lack of even a basic understanding of economics our politics.
  • tmyprod, on 05/27/2008, -3/+4The Republic v.s The Federation?

    Which side gets the Jedi?
    • fasda, on 05/27/2008, -5/+1crazy nut-jobs with more guns then brains
  • kemp34, on 05/27/2008, -3/+6Restore the Republic.
  • CptBuck, on 05/27/2008, -2/+7I'm sorry but whoever wrote this is ***** crazy. "One "United States," the Republic of fifty States, has the "stars and stripes" as its flag, but without any fringe on it. The Federal United States' flag is the stars and stripes with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts."

    You have to be kidding me.
    • sgiffy, on 05/27/2008, -1/+5The tassel thing is a reoccurring theme amongst the nuts. I think it stems for a belief that things can only symbolize one thing and that such symbolism is the essence of reality. For example every time you use a 't' you are endorsing Christianity, and whenever an 'o', nihilism.
  • vault, on 05/27/2008, -1/+7Buried as revionist propaganda. I got a kick out of this though:

    "They realized that a separate nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This "United States" is a Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited rule over its citizenry,"

    and then it devolves into a typical gold standard rant. Lame.
  • Dzonatas, on 05/27/2008, -5/+5This document that covers the Uniform Commercial Code and the history of how it is created and now maintained isn't made up. The presentation of it may be more extreme that what really happens, as there is laws now that state the two flags (with and without fringe) mean the same. The military called this set up Area 51, which may be based on there being 50 states plus 1, and the 1 being the what this article references. The alien stories of 'area 51' is a distraction to make the military knowledge of the UCC an absurdity in public view. It was pretty much classified knowledge until there were more and more lawyers that didn't follow the rank-n-file obedience in the court system, and they started to blow the whistle on it. Lawyers that were under no contract with the military were free to talk about Area 51 all they want. Lawyers that have been under contract (militarized) knew it would be a criminal act to declassify knowledge of Area 51. If you take the stories about Area 51 (as mentioned in the news about aliens) and that the military holds such area in high secrecy, but you take away the aliens, you will find that the system of secrecy about Area 51 in both the alien stories and the Area 51 of the UCC is the same code of secrecy. Now you know they truth behind Area 51, and luckily it wasn't fully successful but it is damn scary how much has actually been implemented. It still affects our courts, today.
    • astronomical, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2I think you're part right about area 51, and you bring up a good universal point. Many conspiracies are, in fact, conspiracies themselves. Meaning many conspiracy theories are bunk, but those bunk theories serve a purpose in the actual conspiracy. It's kind of hard to explain, did that make sense?
    • Derelict267, on 05/27/2008, -2/+1Where do the reptilians fit in all of this?
  • pradaaddict, on 05/27/2008, -2/+4At first the article appears very intriguing but it's basically a Gold Standard rant in disguise. Like all Gold Standard rants the author displays a poor understanding of economics and the law.
  • AriaStar, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Wow. Interesting, but worthy of more research.
  • Lyk4n, on 05/27/2008, -2/+2Conspiracies.. lol..
  • georgemason01, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Is the federal government valid in a Republic?

    The 50 states were intended to be individual Republics which were sovereign states, a state known to be a nation in that time. The Constitution did establish more federal powers, but what is the federal government itself? What is Washington, D.C.? Not one of the states, not part of the republic. It is a separate entity which rules the republic.

    The Founders never dreamed of the federal government becoming what it is now...they merely intended for all States to be united for the good of all, who would all have their own Representatives to enable the existence of a unified republic.

    The 14th Amendment is what really ended the sovereignty original United States.
    • quesi, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Sounds like you have, or may want to read "The Federal Zone", again interesting and worth researching. I can't say I wholeheartedly believe anyones theory - but there are some intriguing points. I would say that any true patriot would question what happened to the Republic - by the Peeps for the Peeps, not for the ***** to McScrew the Peeps.

      Something went wrong, thats for sure.
  • lazerus9, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2The sand is shifting under your feet and you know you are losing!
    The facade that "Z "has erected is being destroyed, just like the Twin Towers
  • NYCTV, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Our nation was supposed to endure as a Republic. We had inalienable rights and gave some powers to the states that gave some to the united States. When the united States dissolved and formed 2 nations, one called the Union and the other the Confederated States in the 1860's there was no more Constitutional Republic everything ended. What the writer brings you to is the legal tangle you are now involved in as persons with one right. To vote. We seemed to have lost the Constitution and our inalienable rights for "rule of law" in commercial courts. After the War Between States (don't let them trick you into Civil war, this was a war between two nations) the Union subjugated its conquered territories and installed dictatorships. Like it is doing now in Iraq and 100 years ago in Hawaii. The modus operandi has not changed.

    It was a good read.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.