�The ultimate measure of man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.� Martin Luther King, Jr.

Why is jurisdiction so important to our well-being, our rights as sovereigns, and regaining or establishing the liberties we are supposed to have? There are many people, probably the majority, who believe anything the government does is the way it is supposed to be, especially when the government tempers the stealing of rights with �for the kids�, �in your best interests�, and the bogus wars against crime and drugs. But, is that the case? Does government have the power to deny, alleviate, or ignore any citizen�s rights?

If the American people ever get thoroughly fed up with raids on innocent people�s homes, killing of innocents under the guise of �just doing my job� and the near immunity to being prosecuted due to the �clean hands� doctrine, they will begin to find the truth concerning the purpose of government. And, it is NOT to legislate rights out of existence.

To begin with, �The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation with Respect to the 50 States.� (Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec., Section 1785) This should be common knowledge but isn�t, even by so-called �experts� in the Constitution of the united States of America. This corporation is as foreign to the 50 States as is Canada or Mexico. The only tie with the States is this corporation was set up by the people through the Constitution to take care of specific, limited duties, and, in turn, the States for the sovereign, the People. Simply put - the People own it.

Exactly what are the powers to govern which are given to the federal government (the United States) established by the Constitution? Does it have the power to control crime? Does it have the power to control drugs? Does it have the power to control education? Does it have the power to legislate any act outside the intent of the Constitution and its framers? This could go on but let�s just take a look at these.

Article I, Section 8 describes the powers given to the United States Government. In regards to crime, it may (Clause 4) describe and legislate laws concerning Naturalization and make uniform laws concerning bankruptcy (which it ignores since the federal government has been bankrupt since 1933). Are you a by-right of birth citizen of a State and solvent? If so, any legislation passed cannot lawfully affect you.

Then, in Clause 6, it may define the crime of counterfeiting and punishment thereof. But, if this is the case, why is the federal reserve bank in business since none of the money is gold or silver or backed by gold or silver. What I am saying is this: Federal Reserve Notes are counterfeit (fake or fiat) in the sense they may not be redeemed for an amount of gold or silver equal to a dollar described lawfully by the US Government as 371.25 grains of pure silver or 15 5/21 grains of 90 percent pure gold (31 CFR, Part 55,(1981).

In Clause 10, it has the power to �...define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas...� Are you living on the high seas or committing any high seas violations against this or any other nation? If not, any legislation under this clause cannot be applied to you.

In Clause 3, it is given the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and between the several States, and the Indian tribes. Exactly what was the intent of our founders concerning this? In answering this, the founders wanted to protect the private properties of citizens of the several States. In correlation with this, the Congress (Clause 1) shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay for defense and general welfare (well-being, not socialized benefits handed out by stealing private property from some to give to others).

Did this mean any tax? Of course not since Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibits any level of government from directly taxing any earnings or other acquisitions of property, the �fruits of one�s labor�, of any citizen of the 50 States.

Thus, all the federal government can lay as a tax must be indirect and it must be uniform, such as imports from other nations, and excise, for example, on goods shipped into a State from another State. States are prevented from doing this as it is only a means of helping to support a very limited federal government. Plus, the indirect tax must be uniform across the several States. State government gets its financing from indirect tax in the form of sales tax and taxes placed on privileges but never from the laying of a direct tax on rights.

Exactly where is the jurisdiction established by the Constitution concerning laws affecting the above? It is set in Clause 17 of Section 8. The US Government only has jurisdiction in the District of Columbia and federal properties. Do you live on federal property? Are you a citizen of the District of Columbia or one of the possessions or territories? Or a port of entry specifically set aside for imports? [This does not include the city the port is in. It refers only to that small amount of area sold or ceded to the federal government as a port of entry).

Part of the money collected in a uniform, indirect fashion is to support the defense of the People, such as the standing Navy authorized by Clause 13. And, of course, Congress has the power to declare war against any nation or organization attempting to overthrow the rights of the American people and to establish a standing army for protecting against the invasion.

So, how the devil did Bush (the old one) commit our troops without congressional declaration of war in Desert Storm? Why the devil are our troops spread out all over and policing other nations? Where in Article I, Section 8 is this a power of the federal government, let alone a president acting through an Executive Order? Being quite blunt about it, use of our troops in foreign lands as policing powers isn�t a power of Congress. Such actions can only be done by declaring war in order to protect the citizens of this nation.

Does Congress have the power to send collected money through the indirect means to other nations? Not hardly. It is not the job of the American people to support other countries, nor should there be any excess to send to other countries, at least not to be taken from the people of this nation. Any excess should result in every dollar returned to those who paid it or applied to the next bona fide budget with an equal amount to the excess deleted by lowered indirect taxes. There are a couple of other powers but none gives power to the United States Government to establish a national police force, nor to define any crime other than those listed in the Constitution, one of which is treason.

In reference to the excuse of the war on drugs to enter States unlawfully, it may not arbitrarily make one deadly drug okay (tobacco contributes to between 450,000 to 600,000 deaths annually in this country alone), while making another less deadly and less often used drug taboo. It may not, to make this simple, legislate any drug. To do so is outside its powers.

If you grow marijuana at home and ship it to another State for sale (not as a gift which could not have any tax imposed), then the US Government can lay an indirect tax on it but that tax must be uniform from State to State. The same with cocaine, meth, and whatever other drugs are used by people.

If you make your own firearms or buy within the State of manufacture, does the federal government have the power to regulate and legislate laws concerning firearms? Absolutely NOT. It may only lay a uniform tax on a firearm in its instant of import. But, if you make a weapon and sell it to your neighbor, it has no power to tell you you cannot, nor that your neighbor may not keep it, nor that there is a tax due on it.

You may own and bear any firearm or weapon loaded and at the ready. Congress nor State nor political subdivisions may legislate otherwise - constitutionally speaking, that is. If you should accidentally shoot someone, then a lawful crime punishable by STATE law has been committed. But, I haven�t read of one case, excluding hunting accidents, which occurred outside the home by people who are properly allowed to conceal and carry. Too bad the same doesn�t hold true with government terrorists during raids on innocent people�s homes and during unlawful stops on the highways.

In regards to the well-being and protecting rights of all sovereigns, until and unless one does interfere with the rights of others, neither the federal government, the State governments, nor political subdivisions of have any power to regulate anything you do. You are the sovereign. Hopefully, you will be mature enough, and responsible enough, to not interfere with the rights of your fellow man. If not, then State laws will cover your crime.

We must understand that State governments, not the United States, may define crimes of citizens interfering with the rights of other citizens and suitable punishments for doing so. But, that is the extent of it. I.e., if one drives a hundred miles an hour and never harms another, then a crime has not been committed.

If you drink yourself silly and then drive safely home, you have not committed a crime. I drove drunk for over a quarter of a century. I measured distance by the number of beers it took me to get from place to place, whether it was a 20 hour trip or a thirty minute trip. I have driven far past legally drunk in all States except Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maine, Connecticut, and Maryland. Not once did I ever harm or interfere with another person�s rights. I did not have even a minor accident, such as going through a ditch and hitting a farmer�s fence. I never so much as scratched any of the cars I have driven during my life, nor have I scratched any other citizen's auto or truck.

I quit over eight years ago as I simply got tired of drinking and lost my taste for alcoholic beverages. During the half of my life spent drinking, did I commit a crime against my fellow man? No, I did not. If I would ever again want a beer, I would again drink and drive. And, it is highly improbable that I would interfere with another�s rights as, with mellowing out, has come increased responsibility for my own actions. I simply would not drive after I felt my senses were seriously impaired.

Besides, I would almost wager now that the government harms people and destroys their rights far in excess of those truly related to life-long drinkers. I would wager and give odds that if facts were used, very few accidents are caused by those people who drink to excess daily. Even when drinking at my heaviest, I learned to stay off the roads during holidays, especially New Year�s Eve. It was not the cops I feared but drivers who drink only occasionally. (Now, of course, I fear the actions of cops anytime large numbers of people are not around - too many beatings, false arrests, confiscation of property, incarcerations, and deaths.)

If a citizen ever did use a drug such as (ugh) the never-elected Bush�s favorite, cocaine, and did so at home or in public without harming another person�s rights, has the citizen committed an act that is a crime? Again, no, since there isn't a victim. The citizen has merely expressed his right to enjoy the drug without interference from any other citizen or the governnment.

Does the federal government or any State have the right to regulate "safety related" legislation concerning your rights? Take a classic example that is making insurance companies a fortune, the requirement to buy auto insurance. Where is it a power of government to tell you what product you must buy? Of course, the federal and State governments no doubt get huge kick-backs from the insurance industry, either directly or indirectly. I have driven for 43 years and had only one accident which was proved to not be my fault. If I did damage another�s property, then it would be up to me to take care of the damages, but not by paying some insurance company money in advance by an unconstitutional order by government.

Or, seatbelts. I hate wearing seatbelts. And what clause in the Constitution gives any level of government the power to tell me to do something I hate doing, that disrupts my sense of well-being everytime I drive? Well, there isn�t one. Government must succumb to my rights, not what the individuals making it up think, especially since so many of them seem not �to think.� And as for voting for any removal of a right - this is a Republic form of government, not a democracy.

Under what clause in the Constitution is it required that the government orders you to register your property with any level of government. No matter how you cut it, any registration requiring a fee applies a direct tax to your private property and, hence, is unconstitutional. That includes licensing, registering (most States did not even become �titled� States until the late 50�s through the 70�s), city stickers, safety inspections (they have not had any effect to date except to feed the States money from citizens), and so on.

But, if you did drive your vehicle and did have an accident, then you become liable to any damage done to the other people�s property. Licensing and all that is just a means of taxing you and for tracking you, another right (the right to privacy) that has been circumvented by the US Government and States with Social Security numbers, fingerprints, and so on.

As for ownership, it was previously proved through a bill of sale and that was all. I have now purchased two vehicles that were last owned before the State of purchase was a title State, meaning the State gets the title or bill of sale and the citizen gets a certificate of title. Also, since the title (bill of sale) determines ownership, the title given to the State also gives the State title and ownership of the vehicle. Yes, you read the right. You do not �own� your registered vehicles, the State does. And, you pay rent on it by paying property tax and re-licensing the vehicle/s every year, the fee for you to use the vehicle.

Does a State have the power to do this? No!!! No level of government has the power to tell or ask you anything about your self, your property, or anything unless it has high probability to believe either you have committed a crime or that you have used your property to commit a crime. And tips of wrong-doing should not be included as giving enough proof that any person has "probably" (probable cause) committed a crime.

Does the federal government have the right to seize any property from citizens? No, unless it is a matter of imported goods not having excise tax paid on it or some other form of indirect tax. And, it must be done under due process of law, a step the feds are seriously forgotten about. Course, they get well-paid for their forgetfulness.

Does a State have the power to seize any property from citizens? Not without due process which means it must be proved the property was involved in a crime or that it is used in redress for crimes committed. My God, people, billions are being seized from law-abiding citizens because we sit back on our comfortable butts and let them get away with it. Judges, prosecuting attorneys, and arresting officers are making a fortune across this nation through unconstitutional, unlawful seizures. It is getting the point that citizens should take up the practice of law enforcement, that is, by shooting first and questioning later.

Also, personal property obtained through right may not be seized for �taxes owed� since there isn�t any direct tax that may be laid by right property of the citizens of the 50 States. And, all indirect taxes are paid when you buy a product that has uniform taxes laid on it, but none can be laid on the item after it becomes your personal property.

Every lien and resultant levy ever placed based on any form of direct tax and outside due process has been unconstitutional. That makes the US Government, the State governments, and political subdivisions the greatest criminal organizations that have ever existed on Earth since they steal from law-abiding citizens and criminals alike. They are nothing but thieves through fraud, coercion, and intimidation spread by killing, stealing property, control of courts and judges, and so on.

So, to answer a few questions. If an act is not on the high seas, dealing with counterfeiting, or non-resident aliens, and you are just a citizen earning money and property through rights, then the federal government hasn�t any power to make any law concerning you, a sovereign.

State governments likewise may not legislate away the rights of citizens. This includes unalienable enumerated and self-evident. If you want to drive without a seat belt or insurance, that is your business, not the State you live in. Laws made interfering with your rights are null and void from the first instant of being a law (16 Am Jur 2d, 177). Null and void laws should be ignored and put out of existence by the people getting united with common cause.

Local governments shouldn�t even try to legislate what is lawful or not lawful. Most of them have never read the Constitution, nor studied the Republic form of government, and should really just stick to administering rather than legislating. In other words, there are a lot of real dummies in local governments who got there only by popularity (money related usually) and has nothing to do with ability to govern (or administrate, come to think of it).

Besides, any necessary legislation concerning crimes and punishment should be done on the State level. All laws must be uniform and affect all citizens of this nation equally as each sovereign is first and foremost a citizen of the united States of America with the rights, privileges, and all other immunities of every other citizen. Living in a city does not make one iota of difference since the Constitution of the united States did not stop at the city limits.

I must, at this time, apologize for the length. I am getting to the point of this article but I had to lay the background first as one never knows what others have read previously. In getting to the point, the FBI, CIA, DEA (I think in the FBI now), IRS, and any other clandestine organizations of the federal government do not have any business being in the several States.

Now, don�t misunderstand - they can be in ports of entry, on military installations of all types, and other federal property. But, those properties are NOT in the 50 States - they are federal and once the land was purchased or ceded, it is no longer part of the State.

Concerning personal, private and Real property, no level of government has jurisdiction over it. It is yours and you are sovereign. It may not be taxed directly, nor any rule placed on it as long as activites are not interfering with another�s rights. Private property means NOT public property and NOT under public control.

Related to this is a phrase I have grown to utterly despise. It is �National Security�. When organizations (the �troops�) of the federal government intrude on the States, is it to defend the rights of citizens - or are they removing rights of citizens? Defending the States, specifically the people and their rights, is the only constitutionally proper behavior of federal government trained personnel and the only times the use of deadly force should be tolerated is to defend one's own or another citizen's life.

Think about that for a minute. In every case, whether it be drug related, firearm related, federal income tax related, or any other so-called �crime� investigation except for counterfeiting, US Government troops are acting as terrorists and invading the private lives of citizens and the States. THEY ARE AN INVADING FORCE taking aggressive, armed actions against the States and, more specifically, against the citizens of the several States.

Add to this the fact that government cover-ups are always to cover up government screw-ups or their subversive schemes being used to remove the rights of citizens. As such, each government official involved has violated his oath of office and is fighting against the rights of the citizens of the United States of America.

So, just whose security is being protected? Is it the States? The People? Or, are all these acts of aggression to protect the security of the United States, the federal government established in and by the Constitution and ruled to be a separate corporation from, and foreign to, the several States?

I maintain it is the federal government using the concept of �National Security� to protect its own lawlessness, that every last official, including any military personnel, agencies, law enforcement personnel, judges, attorneys, members of Congress, oval office people, and so on who have acted against a citizen, are guilty of TREASON and should be dealt with to the maximum penalty allowed - execution. It is a war we are in and the punishment during a war for treason is the firing squad or hanging.

Prove me wrong and I will apologize - but I don�t expect to have to apologize anymore than I expect Hell to freeze over. What I do expect is for the people of this nation to wake up and realize the worst enemy of liberty we have is the federal, State, and local governments who have unlawfully legislated away God-given rights.

What we do in the very near future, Folks, will be the measure of us as future historians try to determine why the intended destruction of personal liberty and world domination by a very few financial giants occurred. I pray they will read we overcame this evil even though not being able to determine �why� anymore then than we can today. Just who are these beings who place themselves above our Creator?

One can only conclude - the manifestation of pure evil.