Institutional Tyranny - The Character & Color of Authority

By Dan Meador

Introduction
 
In the last decade, increasing numbers of men and women have joined the effort to unravel how Federal, State, and local governments make what amount to end runs around constitutional limitations. The purpose of this composition is to bring the fruit of the best research into focus, and construct a reasonably comprehensive picture of the macabre scheme that undermines sovereignty and solvency of the nation.

The Scheme & Its Effect

Governments of the United States, the Union of several States, and possessions of the United States are embroiled in a scheme known as Cooperative Federalism, sometimes identified simply as Federalism. The nonconstitutional scheme presumes that each of the several States is an instrumentality of the United States on a par with insular possessions of the United States [End Note 1], rather than semi-independent State republics, (1) restricted only by constitutional prohibitions and mandates, and (2) subject only to constitutionally-enumerated powers of the United States.

This scheme was made possible by emergence of a second government. Yet even today, those not familiar with the two capacities of United States government find it difficult to grasp implications. However, some who held responsible positions when the second or shadow government emerged saw the danger. Justice Harlan, a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, was among them. One of his more lucid criticisms was written in his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell (1901), the first of four insular tax cases that provided a conceptual platform for the current de facto (authority in fact, but without law) system that engulfs not only insular possessions of the United States, but State republics party to the Constitution:

The United States, via constitutionally-delegated powers which are statutorily activated by Congress, carries out certain responsibilities in relation to the several States party to the Constitution and the people of the several States, but Congress has what is described as plenary or near-absolute power in territory belonging to the United States. The insular tax cases, addressed a unique situation: Insular possessions ceded by Spain in 1898 following the Spanish-American War were the first territories acquired by the United States where the cession treaty did not incorporate the territory and people in the constitutional scheme. Consequently, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and other provinces ceded by Spain were to become more like British Crown colonies than territory previously acquired by the United States.

This division, and limited application of the Constitution, was what alarmed Justice Harlan and others who clearly understood that a house divided cannot stand -- that the "permissive" would eventually overcome the "restrictive" government. They were correct. Cooperative Federalism, known as Corporatism into the 1930's, evolved to crowd out legitimate government required to operate within the confines of constitutionally-enumerated powers.

Since the 1930's great depression and World War II, fraudulent economic policy, and mathematically impossible credit and monetary systems, have undermined American sovereignty and solvency, resulting in agonizing rural poverty and cancerous growth of the urban ghetto. The effect of wealth transfer since the early 1970's has all but destroyed the nation's middle and upper-middle income classes. Benefits flow to only about twenty percent of the population, windfalls funnel to the wealthiest quarter of one percent. By the current decade, the Cooperative Federalism system of frauds had ripened to such decadence that it criminalizes tens of thousands without lawful, constitutionally delegated authority, and otherwise engages in thinly disguised piracy perpetrated against many thousands more. Absolutely nobody is safe -- government seeks to control life of virtually all Americans from cradle to grave.

Distress from the increasingly confrontational system is sufficient that every legitimate key-question survey since 1990 has reflected that sixty percent or more of the nation's eligible voters distrusts politicians and political institutions down to and including local school boards. By September 1995, the distrust level topped 72%, and by May 1996, went over 80%; in November 1996, only 49% of the nation's registered voters bothered to vote, which was a distressing number due largely to only 35-40% of those eligible to vote having even registered. Consequently, few politicians elected in November 1996 represent much more than 10% of the eligible voters in their respective districts. As the last decade of the Twentieth Century draws to an end, national, state, and local governments are probably less representative of the people than at any time since Congress convened under the Constitution in 1789. [3]

In a more pointed survey, approximately 35% of those interviewed expressed manifest and rising anger toward the Federal government. The summer 1998 survey abated some from a year earlier, but politicians such as Vice President Al Gore are concerned that what was previously articulated as anger has simply turned to cynicism, in many ways a more dangerous and enduring mindset. Those cynical and angry toward Federal government constitute a significant force approaching half the nation's adult population.

These surveys contradict mainline media pomp and circumstance proclaiming all is well. Americans aren't passive and indifferent to personal and national welfare, generation of wealth, and sovereignty. The vast majority knows something is desperately wrong, but has been mystified and immobilized by a de facto scheme woven in the craft of wordsmiths and deception which has evolved since approximately the Civil War, with what amounted to a constitutional coup de grace in the 1930's. Encroachment has continued at a steady to accelerating pace since, hitting high gear in 1966 and after. By 1990, State and Federal governments incarcerated more people in total numbers and on a per-capita basis than any other nation in the world other than South Africa and the old Soviet Union -- prison industries had become the nation's fifth largest industry. The Department of Justice, to say nothing of corresponding State agencies, the Internal Revenue Service, and other Federal agencies, routinely seizes and/or confiscates in excess of $50 billion per year in privately-owned American assets. [4] This frenzy has gone so overboard that by late 1997 and early 1998, even The Wall Street Journal, Forbes Magazine, and other influential mainline publications were publishing critical articles. In 1998, American incarceration numbers, now at 1.2 million nationally, and in excess of 113,000 in the Federal system, rank second in the world, with the old Soviet Union having the dubious honor of ranking first.

The combined force of adverse economic policy, and abusive administrative, and civil and criminal judicial initiatives, is rapidly reaching critical mass -- a point where general civil disobedience, and eventually revolution, is inevitable unless something happens to alleviate mounting conflict. Common people feel alienated from and defenseless against their government, symptoms which have characteristically led to backlash and violent confrontation. This is the course of nations and empires throughout history, with nineteen of twenty-one known empires prior to 1935 having fallen from within due to economic collapse and destruction of key social institutions. [5]

Proper enforcement of law has the potential of averting disaster. Cooperative Federalism is imposed through fraud and illusion -- perpetrators operate in a de facto manner without lawful authority, so they are subject to criminal prosecution and civil remedies in lawful State and Federal courts. The problem is forcing those appointed or elected to judicial offices to convene constitutionally-authorized courts, or removing them from office so successors will.

Thanks to the work of patriotic researchers across the nation, keys to unraveling convoluted State and Federal Codes are soundly in place. With solid conceptual footing, energy can be focused on untangling the maze, then deploying strategies to peacefully and lawfully correct the system. Scripture speaks to the matter in two contexts which are fundamental to the effort: The reprobate will be caught in his own snare, and in his second letter to Timothy, the Apostle Paul foretold that the reprobate would proceed no further as he would be exposed for all the world to see. These two approaches are fundamental to peacefully restoring constitutional rule. [6]

The Least Common Denominators

Virtually every Federal initiative in the Union of several States in both civil and criminal actions is defective by virtue of being without lawful authority. All cases are prosecuted in United States District Courts [7] in the name and by authority of the United States of America. At first blush, this process would seem innocent enough, but the underlying difficulty is akin to remembering if the order of stripes on the deadly coral snake is red then black, or red then yellow. The United States District Court isn't what it seems; the "United States of America" isn't what it seems, either.

These are fatal flaws. Only district courts of the United States, as defined at 28 U.S.C. § 451, and three remaining territorial courts [8], are courts of the United States. United States District Courts situated in the Union of several States are private courts; they do not exercise Article III or Article IV (territorial) judicial authority of the United States.

The Article III district court was defined in a 1938 Supreme Court decision styled Mookini v. United States, as follows:

Conversely, the legitimate territorial court, designated as a United States District Court, was defined by the Supreme Court in Balzac v. Porto Rico in 1922:

One of the better listings of "courts of the United States" is the definition of courts which the Administrative Office of Courts of the United States has jurisdiction over, at 28 U.S.C. § 610. However, this list is dated. Since the definition was last amended, the United States District Court for the Canal Zone has been abolished, and the territorial court (United States District Court) for the Northern Mariana Islands has been added:

A somewhat different but maybe clearer approach is used in the definition at 28 U.S.C. § 1869(f). This subsection "defines" what courts of the United States are authorized by statute to convene grand and petit (trial) juries, and effectively bridges civil and criminal so far as lawful courts of the United States are concerned:

Criminal jurisdiction of the United States, found at 18 U.S.C. § 3231, is vested in "district courts of the United States", not "United States District Courts", and the same is true in civil forums in title 28 of the United States Code. Sections of the Code which reflect jurisdiction similar to district courts of the United States in territorial courts are found for the most part in title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. The Virgin Islands territorial court is unique in that it is vested with concurrent maritime jurisdiction at 18 U.S.C. § 3241. However, the "territorial" jurisdiction can and does extend only to the insular possession itself, and to territorial waters. The Canal Zone territorial court had concurrent admiralty and maritime jurisdiction until it was abolished.

No Article III or Article IV jurisdiction of the United States is vested in United States District Courts situated in the Union of several States party to the Constitution. They are not courts created by Congress -- they are private courts created by a judicial consortium. These folks garbed in black were for the most part appointed under authority of Article III § 1 of the Constitution to preside in lawful courts of the United States, but without constitutional or statutory authority, elected to set up their own private court system which operates under the territorial illusion.

This is not conjecture. Judges and the court clerk in the Eastern District of Kentucky have effectively confessed this conclusion in administrative and judicial forums. Law of the United States speaks clearly to the matter. Litigation is already filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky with the mandate to convene the Article III district court of the United States, with an affidavit of bias and prejudice that disqualifies all judges appointed to the district, thereby forcing the Chief Judge of the 6th Circuit to convene the constitutionally-authorized district court. The contention is supported by a letter from the office of the General Counsel for the Administrative Office of Courts of the United States.

It is particularly important to understand that the "United States of America" responsible for civil and criminal initiatives in United States District Courts is a government foreign to the United States that has no constitutional or statutory authority in the several States party to the Constitution. Where United States government has two capacities or characters, there are two distinct political alliances or coalitions named "United States of America".

The original United States of America, spelled with capital first letters, was comprised of the thirteen original States joined to fight the American war of independence, and was formally established in Article I of the Articles of Confederation (1777). This same "United States of America" appears in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States: "We the People of the United States..," established the Constitution, "... for the United States of America." The United States of America also has a function in Article II of the Constitution: By way of electoral college, the President is elected President of the United States of America, then at his inauguration is sworn in by oath as President of the United States.

The relationship of the Union of several States party to the Constitution, designated as the United States of America in the Articles of Confederation, is somewhat on the order of member nations who participate in the United Nations. By way of charter, signatory nations established the United Nations, but the charter does not vest unilateral authority in any of the participating nations; all actions of the United Nations, regardless of what nations participate, are engaged in the name and by authority of the United Nations. The Constitution of the United States enumerates certain powers vested in the governmental entity known and designated as the United States, not the United States of America.
Next page in article