Teaching "The Organic Laws of The United States of

America"
Without a vision the people parish.
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 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.)
***
Next Day - the 17th 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-

(that is the focus of the advanced course under Professor Rivera). Just sent off a followup 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:
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!
***
20th 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.
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 UNprivileged 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)
"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.

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.
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)
"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

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;
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.

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:
"[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."
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. 1718 (1916)"
U.S. Supreme Court, So. Carolina v. Baker, , 485 U.S. 505 (1988)
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

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

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 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 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.
***
August 23, 2016 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,
Chef Jemichel
***
August 26th The teaching also needs to extend to the candidates for the office of Representative to
the United States House of Representatives.[6]
***
31st 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

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.
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."
"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

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."
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.
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

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."
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"

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.
Looking forward to the possibility of hearing from you!
Toward Greater Freedom!
~Chef Jemichel
***
September 12, 2016 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 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

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
***
September 19th 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]
***
The 22nd "... 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-britishgovernment.html?showComment=1472016473625#c2952764322790385215
[3] 172a3-judge2banna

[4] ttps://mainerepublicemailalert.com/2016/08/22/the-second-summit-britishgovernment-gratitude-explained/
[5] http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=prelim
[6] http://us10.campaign-archive2.com/?
u=f8e38d415be497134eee68415&id=74d26fb96e&e=a0fab7067b
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-toknow#unalienablerights
[11] http://www.edrivera.com/?page_id=2
[12] https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-ofamerica/