USING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN ITS CORRECT PREMISE

The following article on the District of Columbia was in part taken from Wikipedia that I find as
excellent source material. The article is designed to put to sleep the notion that the
unincorporated government is a defense against the encroachment of government when in fact
and in law the complete opposite is true.

Main article: History o[ Washington, D.C.

An Algonquian people known as the Nacotchtank inhabited the area around the Anacostia River
in present day Washington when the first Europeans arrived in the 17th century; however,
Native American people had largely relocated from the area by the early 18th century.
Georgetown was chartered by the Province of Maryland on the north bank of the Potomac River
in 1751. The town would be included within the new federal territory established nearly 40
years later. The City of Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1749, was also originally included
within the District.

James Madison explained the need for a federal district on January 23, 1788 in the Federalist
No. 43, arguing that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states, in order to provide
for its own maintenance and safety. An attack on the Congress at Philadelphia by a mob of
angry soldiers, known as the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, had emphasized the need for the
government to see to its own security. Therefore, the authority to establish a federal capital was
provided in Article One, Section Eight, of the United States Constitution, which permits a
"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". The
Constitution, however, does not specify a location for the new capital. In what later became
known as the Compromise of 1790, Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson came
to an agreement that the federal government would assume war debt carried by the states, on the
condition that the new national capital would be located in the South.

On July 16, 1790, the Residence Act provided for a new permanent capital to be located on the
Potomac River, the exact area to be selected by President Washington. As permitted by the U.S.
Constitution, the initial shape of the federal district was a square, measuring 10 miles (16 km)
on each side, totaling 100 square miles (260 km"). During 1791-92, Andrew Ellicott and several
assistants, including Benjamin Banneker, surveyed the border of the District with both Maryland
and Virginia, placing boundary stones at every mile point; many of the stones are still standing.
A new "federal city" was then constructed on the north bank of the Potomac, to the east of the
established settlement at Georgetown. On September 9, 1791, the federal city was named in
honor of George Washington and the district was named the Territory of Columbia,
Columbia being a poetic name for the United States in use at that time. Congress held its first
session in Washington on November 17, 1800.

The Organic Act of 1801 officially organized the District of

Columbia and placed the entire federal territory, including the
cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria under the
exclusive control of Congress. Further, the unincorporated
1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 territory within the District was organized into two counties: the
County of Washington on the north bank of the Potomac, and
the County of Alexandria on the south bank. Following this Act,
citizens located in the District were no longer considered
residents of Maryland or Virginia, thus ending their
representation in Congress.

On August 24-25, 1814, in a raid known as the Burning of Washington, British forces invaded
the capital during the War of 1812, in retaliation for the sacking and burning of York (modern-
day Toronto). The Capitol, Treasury, and White House were burned and gutted during the
attack. Most government buildings were quickly repaired, but the Capitol, which was at the time
largely under construction, would not be completed until 1868.

Since 1800, the District's residents have protested their lack of voting representation in
Congress. To correct this, various proposals have been offered to return
the land
ceded to form the District back to Maryland and Virginia. This
process is known as retrocession. However, such efforts failed to earn enough support until the
1830s when the District's southern county of Alexandria went into economic decline due to
neglect by Congress. Alexandria was also a major market in the
American slave trade, and rumors circulated that abolitionists in Congress were
attempting to end slavery in the District; such an action would have further depressed
Alexandria's economy. Unhappy with Congressional authority over Alexandria, in 1840 the
people began to petition for the retrocession of the District's southern territory back to Virginia.
The state legislature complied in February 1846, partly because the return of Alexandria
provided two additional proslavery delegates to the Virginia General Assembly. On July 9,
1846, Congress agreed to return all the District's territory south of the
Potomac River back to the Commonwealth of Virginia.[Bold large print added]

[Not the fault of Wikipedia, but notice the above article does not
say anything about returning the slaves with their contractual rights
back to the incorporated state of Virginia, only the ceded land back
to Virginia. The slaves were considered property by their owners
with no personal rights, thus no personal estate under the law of
nations or the laws of Virginia because Virginia was considered a
slave state. The 14th Amendment in 1868 was an executive order
brought under the unincorporated territories of the District that is
constitutional under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, thereby evading the issue
of whether the 14th amendment was properly ratified. The 14th
amendment freed the slaves and gave them personal rights under

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 private international law or the law of nations, then eventually under
the law of the states. The 14th amendment also offered the sovereign
citizens of the states the same privileges and immunities under
private international law that is also known as the Law Merchant.
Municipal laws of the District simply do not apply under private
international law. It also must be mentioned here that the 14th
amendment is also tied into the 16th amendment.]

Section 1, 14th Amendment.. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. (Bold
emphasis added)

The 14th amendment is an executive order (proclamation) Vol. 1 of Presidential Executive

Orders, 2 vols. (N.Y.: Books, Inc., 1944—Copyright by Mayor of N.Y. 1944).
“[T]he term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ . . . must be construed in the sense in
which the term is used in international law as accepted in the United States as well as
Europe. * * * The provision of the 14th Amendment alluded to . . . is affirmative and
declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen
with respect to citizenship.” Francis Wharton, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws or
Private International Law, 3rd ed. (Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Co., 1906), vol.
1, pp. 45-47.

Private International Law Defined and Distinguished. "International law, in its widest
and most comprehensive sense-including not only questions of right between nations,
governed by what has be in appropriately called the law of nations; but also questions
arising under what is usually called private international law or the conflict of law's, and
concerning the rights of persons within the territory and dominion of one nation, by
reason of acts, private or public, done within the dominion, of another nation-is part of
our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the Courts of justice, as often as
such questions are presented in litigation between man and man, duly submitted to their
determination." Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113. 16 S. C. Rep,. 139. Taken from
LEADING CASES ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. By John W. Dwyer, LL.M.

In his treatise on the “History of Land Titles in Massachusetts”, (1801), James Sullivan,
former Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court at pp. 337-338 stated:

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 Personal estate is not fixed to any place or country, and contracts depend on the jus
gentium (the general law of nations) for their origin and their expositions, rather than
on any municipal regulations of particular countries.
It is observed by Justinian, that the law of nations is held in common by all the world;
and that all contracts had their origin in those necessities of mankind, which urged
them to buying, selling, etc. … As personal contracts are founded in commerce, they
cannot rest on the particular laws of one country only; but ought to be the subject of
those principles of the general law of nations, which are acknowledged by the world.

The laws of the District of Columbia never have or ever will conform to the laws of the
states of the Union under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1, thus in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.)
212 (1845), the question of federal jurisdiction was once again before the Court. This case
involved a contest of the title to real property, with one of the parties claiming a right to the
disputed property via a U.S. patent; the lands in question were situated in Mobile, Alabama,
adjacent to Mobile Bay. In discussing the subject of federal jurisdiction, the Court held:

"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States
never, held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the
territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed, " 44 U. S., at 221
(1845). [underline emphasis added]. [See also Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 to the
Constitution of United States.]

The person in the New York case below choose not to create any evidence that would
declare that he volunteered to surrender his personal rights by signing documents that would
make him subject to a foreign power thus he remained a sovereign citizen of the
incorporated state of New York under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1.

Today people sign government documents that are contracts and WHAM O!!, they have
given up their sovereignty under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 to become member beneficiaries of
the public social security trust in “a territory” under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 and wonder
where their Constitutional rights went.

In June 1957, the government of United States published a work entitled Jurisdiction
Over Federal Areas within the States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the
Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States, Part II.

The federal government cannot, by unilateral action on its part acquire legislative
jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of the state, Id., at 46.[Bold
underline emphasis added]

The question becomes what boundaries? The above published work was established 50
+ years ago and since that time, the state boundary lines in the states constitutions have
disappeared. The federal government is not the blame, it’s the people who unilaterally reach
into the government and sign those government documents to become a beneficiary of the
government’s public debt.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 "If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory,
and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on
whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction” New
York v. Miln (11 Peters)102; 36 U.S., at 133 (1837) [Bold emphasis added]

Notice that it does not say the person “resides” in “a territory” see 14th amendment
and O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 US 516, 537 (1933), to the contrary; the person is
found in the same territory, i.e., a incorporated association of states of the Union under
Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 as opposed to “a territory” of unincorporated association of
federated states under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 of the Constitution of U.S.

Check out your state’s constitution for where it exists today. There are no borders. The
condition of state of being today is “a territory” as defined in O’Donoghue above.

Congress may legislate directly with respect to the local affairs of a territory or it
may transfer that function to a legislature elected by the citizens thereof, Binns v.
United States, 194 US 491 (1904). [Are you starting to understand Federal
mandates?] [Bold print added]

The Constitutional guarantees of private rights are applicable in territories which

have been made a part of the United States by congressional action but not in
unincorporated territories Downes v. Bidwll, 182 US 244. [Bold underline print
added]

The status and rank of territorial governments, the Supreme Court of the United States
in the case of Snow v. United States. 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 317, stated:

Government territories of the United States belongs primarily to Congress, and

secondarily to such agencies as Congress may establish for that purpose. They are
mere dependencies of the United States. Their people do not constitute a
sovereign power. [Bold underline emphasis print added]

Former Chief Justice John Marshall in United States v. Maurice (U.S.) 26 Fed Cas.
1211, stated, at page 1216:

“The United States is a government, and consequently a body politic and corporate,
capable of attaining the objects for which it was created by the means which are
necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained and established
by the American people, and endowed by them with great powers, for important
purposes.” Quoted In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 506, 141 N.Y. 479. The
American People created the National corporation; the National corporation did not
create the people. As the Preamble says: “We the People in Order to form a more
perfect Union … .”

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 The Constitution of United States is the master charter that spells out the limited powers
of Government. One of those limited powers given to Congress is the creation of Article IV
Section 3 cl.1 to deal with incorporating states into the Union.

[clause 1] New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new
State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any
State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the
Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The main thrust of the Constitution of United States was the peoples unfettered use of
the common law under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1, and Article I Section 10 and the absolute
rights under the first 10 Amendments to the Bill of Rights. The Constitution of United States
is a common law document, Munn v. Illinois 94 U.S. 113.

The author of this article feels that the case below is so important that I have repeated
excerpts here. I am a firm believer that the courts are not corrupt, it’s the people that are
corrupt by wanting the best of both sides of the law, public and private law and go to court
based upon the wrong premise and the judges go ballistic then blame the judges.

As the court noted in United States of America v. State of Michigan No. M26-73 C.A.
(1979).

“Before the filing of the complaint and continuously during the Course of these
proceedings, the State of Michigan and certain individually named state officials
have acted in derogation of the vested aboriginal and federal rights of the plaintiff
Indian tribes. The conflict between the state and tribal fisherman is notorious;
scarcely a day goes by without an article appearing in one or more of the state’s
major newspapers concerning the controversy. That it is a passionate issue is
exemplified by a recent wholly improper attempt to influence this Court through the
circulation of petitions amongst sports fishermen which urged that the court rule
against the Indians. The circulation of petitions is an action diametrically at odds
with the methods of access to the courts mandated by the Federal rules of Civil
Procedure. This misguided action gave thousands of people the erroneous
impression that constitutional rights are a matter of popular contest. This was a
corruption of the concept of the Federal Judicial system. In a democracy, many
times people violate Constitutional and Inalienable rights. The United States Courts
exist to ensure guaranteed constitutional rights against the TYRANNY OF
POPULAR MAJORITIES. ” [Capital letters used in original, underline italics
emphasis added].

The court made it very clear that the case was NOT a 14th amendment citizen case.

The court also went back 12.000 years and stated that personal rights were the same then
as today. The court in essence stated a truism, the law never changes, its your access to the
law that is in constant change. Each person can restore the Constitution by stop putting
demands on government that are outside the enumerated powers.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 What was the subject matter of this case? A written treaty agreed to by both the United
States Government and the Indian Tribes premised on the United States Constitution.

What is the treaty between the people of United States and the Government of United
States, the Constitution? The Constitution is a written Charter whereby the people formed an
incorporated association under the Common Law that is evidenced by that document that
spells out what the duties of Government are. The Constitution does not restrict the
individual’s right to contract into an unincorporated association under private international
law should they desire. The Constitution must provide you free access to the law of your
choice, or the Constitution becomes a dictatorship.

A NEW IN DEPTH EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE LAW TO MAKE YOU

THINK BEFORE YOU ACT BASED UPON THE CORRECT PREMISE.

Lee Brobst
eagleeye@pennswoods.net

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com