Source: http://freedom-school.com/history/corporate-constitution.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 23:21:32+00:00

Document:
I was telling people this over seven years ago here in Washington and Oregon!
There are NO States in Original Jurisdiction in existence today. See Hepburn Dundas v. Elzey.
The OLD Union of what we used to know as the Original 13 Union States or often referred to as the "several States" were destroyed.
The NEW UNION of ALL the States that we know today are in fact and law Federal Municipal Corporations and ALL have FEDERAL TAX ID NUMBERS.
Look up the word "The" and the Significance of placing it before another word.
There is a radical difference between "The State of Washington" as opposed to STATE OF WASHINGTON.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA is NOT the same thing as "The State of California.
ALL the States in Original Jurisdiction i.e. the several States or 13 Union States of the OLD UNION were destroyed.
Look up the word RECONSTRUCTION.
It's obvious that they were putting something back together that was destroyed.
And they formed a NEW UNION.
STATE OF WASHINGTON like ALL fifty States is a Federal Municipal Corporation and is operating under Territorial Law.
That's right, ALL States in existence today are operating under TERRITORIAL LAW.
In Washington, we have what is called the Revised Code of Washington.
The Revised Code of Washington is the Territorial Code of 1881 Revised.
The Territorial Code of 1881 is the Session Law or Statute Law passed by the Legislature.
The current Revised Code of Washington i.e. the RCW's have NEVER been passed into law by the Legislature.
The Reconstruction Acts required ALL States to ARCHIVE their Original Constitutions and replace them with what I call Corporate Charter Constitutions and made them a mere "statute" which is now superseded by Court Rules which are promulgated by the Supreme Court in every State.
"But the legislature specifically disclaimed any intention to change the meaning of any statute. The compilers of the code were not empowered by congress to amend existing law, and doubtless had no thought of doing so ..." "...the act before us does not purport to amend a section of an act, but only a section of a compilation entitled "REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON," WHICH IS NOT THE LAW. Such an act purporting to amend only a section of the prima facie compilation leaves the law unchanged. En Banc." - PAROSA v. TACOMA, 57 Wn.(2d) 409 (Dec.22, 1960).
The Reconstruction Acts took away the Legal Standing, the Legal Character or the Legal Capacity from the Citizens and changed their Legal Status from ELECTORS in a THREE BRANCH GOVERNMENT as they were in Original Jurisdiction in the Old Union and changed them to REGISTERED VOTERS in a TWO BRANCH GOVERNMENT.
Go to your local City Clerk and ask for a CERTIFIED COPY of your City Charter in any State.
Go to your local County Clerk and ask for a CERTIFIED COPY of your County Charter in any State.
You will find that ALL cities and counties in your State has only TWO BRANCHES. The Executive and Legislative.
There is NO Judicial Branch !
The Judicial Districts were ALL Abolished in 1856 by the Act of the 34th Congress.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1860 reviewed the Act of the 34th Congress ordered ALL the States in Existence at that time to CLOSE DOWN all the Court's of law and ALL Court's complied in every State in 1860.
NONE of the Court's in any State are Court's created by the Constitution of their State.
Every Court from top to bottom, the justice of the peace courts, the police courts, the municipal court's, the district court's and the circuit court's are ALL Statutory Court's created by Statutes which were enacted by the Legislature and in fact and law merely Administrative Agencies and only have the authority conferred by Statute.
ALL STATES in existence today are "TERRITORIES" or "POSSESSIONS" in fact and law.
If you look carefully at your State Statute and it's corresponding Administrative Code, you will find that it was The Buck Act that allowed the States to bring in the Internal Revenue Code into the Territories and Possession's of the United States.
82.52.010 STATE ACCEPTS PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL (BUCK) ACT.
82.52.020 STATE'S TAX LAWS MADE APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL AREAS--EXCEPTION.
RCW 82.52.010 STATE ACCEPTS PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL (BUCK) ACT.
RCW 47.04.050 Acceptance of federal acts.
RCW 47.42.920 FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS--CONFLICT AND ACCORD.
This Court must take Mandatory Judicial Notice ER201 of CR 44.1 Determination of Foreign Law of which I now object, take exception and make an OFFER OF PROOF ER 103(2) that this "fictional court" has NO jurisdiction in the premises for failure to provide proof that I was "driving" a "motor vehicle" in a "FEDERAL AREA.". See California and North Carolina's consistent definition's of those states "municipal law'" which require some sort of "contract" for proper application within the "federal areas" of the "NEW UNION."
"Section 11205. "In this State," etc.
"Section 6017. "In this State" or "in the State"
"N.C. G.S. 105-164.3(7) "In this State" or "in the State" means within the exterior limits of the State of North Carolina and includes all territories within such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America. (Added Stats. 1941, c. 36, p. 536, section 1.)"
It is clear that North Carolina Statutes, California Statutes and Washington Statutes agree completely with the "Buck Act" Title 4 U.S.C.S. sections 105-110, and is identical in implication and meaning. This tax is imposed on every motor vehicle used in any "federal area" such as the Central District of STATE OF WASHINGTON aka "WA", Social Security Area, federal ZIP Code area, etc.
"11(e) The term "Federal Area" means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State."
The Social Security Department created 10 social security districts which like a thin plastic sheet overlay all the 50 states of the union. This creates a "fictional federal state within a state," for the purposes of applying the "Public Salary Tax Act" to these areas.
"There has been created a fictional Federal "state within a state." Howard v. Commissioners of Sinking fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73. S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwartz v. O'Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A.2d 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440.
There is a vestige of State sovereignty remaining which cannot be acquired by the United States (District of Columbia) because of the limitation of the United States to powers delegated under the Constitution. See Cal. 7 Ops Atty Gen. 628; 37 Am. Jur, Municipal Corp sections 23, 26; Wichita Falls v. Bowen, 143 Tex. 45, 182 S.W.2d., 154 A.L.R. 1434; 62 CJS, Mun. Corp. section 46, page 133; Norfolk County v. Portsmouth, 186 Va. 1032, 45 S.E.2d. 136; Anchorage v. Akers, (D.C. Alaska), 100 F.Supp. 2; Kiker v. Philadelphia, 346 Pa. 624, 31 A.2d 289.
This was accomplished by the institution of the "Buck Act," 4 U.S.C.S. sections 104-113, to implement the application of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 to the "employees" working within the private sector. This makes all private sector workers who have and "use" a Social Security number subject to all State and Federal laws "within the State" a "fictional Federal area" overlaying all the land "within" the United States.
"Both parties agreed that, prior to the passage of the Buck Act (1940) 4 U.S.C.A. SSSS 105-110, the various states of the Union had no legal basis for imposing a tax on the activities of a business or individual, when such activities were carried on exclusively within the confines of a federal reservation. They are also in agreement that the effect of the Buck Act was to grant to the states certain taxing powers. This is specifically provided in 4 U.S.C.A. 4 106:"
"Irrespective of what tax is called by state law, if its purpose is to produce revenue, it is income tax or receipts tax Under Buck Act [4 U.S.C.S. sections 105-110"." Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, (1971) 464 S.W.2d 170, affd. (Tex.) 478 S.W.2d 926, cert den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed.2d 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.
"Section 105. State and so forth, taxation affecting Federal Areas; sales and use tax. (a) No person shall be relieved from liability for payment of, collection of, or accounting for any sales or use tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on the ground that the sale or use, with respect to which tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect any such tax in any Federal area, within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area."
"A "Federal area" is any area designated by any agency, Division, or establishment of the federal government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid." Springfield v. Kenny, (1951 App.) 104 N.E.2d. 65.
"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity." Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
"The governments of the united States and each of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other." Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404.
"I.R.C. Section 7701(39) IF ANY CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT RESIDE IN (AND IS NOT FOUND IN) ANY UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT, SUCH CITIZEN OR RESIDENT SHALL BE TREATED AS RESIDING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR PURPOSES OF ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE TO “ (A) jurisdiction of courts, or (B) enforcement of summons."
Also see Internal Revenue Code Section 7408(C) and Art. 1, Section 8, Clause 17 Constitution for the United States of America as defined and reinstated in National Mutual Insurance Company of the District of Columbia, 337 U.S. 582, 93 L.Ed. 1556 (1948) and further states that citizens of the District of Columbia are not embraced by the judicial power under Article 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America, the same statement is held in Hepburn v. Dundas v. Elizey, 2 Cranch (U.S.) 445, 2 L.Ed. 332.; In 1804, the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, held that a citizen of the District of Columbia was not a citizen of a state.
All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as expressly provided by law.
WHAT IS OR WHO ARE CITIZENS?
It is shown that Fourteenth Amendment citizens/subjects are artificial persons created by the legislature (Congress) and cannot claim protections secured by Article IV, section 2. III. Who are Citizens? "Corporations as Citizens. “ Corporations are not citizens within the meaning of this clause. The term ˜citizen" as there used applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic owing allegiance to the state, not to artificial persons created by the legislature and possessing only the attributes which the legislature has prescribed." Volume IX 1888 Fed. Stats. Page 162.
WHAT IS AN ALIEN ENEMY?
Under the "Buck Act" 4 U.S.C.S. sections 105-110, the federal government has created a fictional "Federal area" within the boundaries of North Carolina, California and Washington. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase or conquest, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon those "residing" in said "Federal area" which is called the "State of Washington." In fine point of fact and law, the enforcement of registration and taxation of motor vehicles is being carried out under federal military territorial law as evidenced by the Executive Branch's yellow fringed military and territorial U.S. Flag flying in the courtrooms and Department of Licensing offices. See RCW 38 Militia and Military affairs.
THE TERM "PERSON" INCLUDES THIS STATE!!!
In order to use a civil process to enforce a private right, there must be an agreement upon which the private right is alleged. The RCW is a compilation of private [laws](sic) Copyrighted Codes intended to govern the members of the private corporation "forum state" known as "STATE OF WASHINGTON". STATE OF WASHINGTON having left any previously held plain of sovereignty to take on the status of a private corporation. "It is for some purposes, although not others, treated as a "person." When the United States enters into a commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation." 91 CJS UNITED STATES §4 . The term person identifies this state, RCW 1.16.080 (1) The term "person" may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited liability company, as well as an individual. The definition would not include this state IF this state was Sovereign. "In Common Usage, the term "person" does not include the sovereign and statute employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, U.S. 258,91. See also United States v. Fox 94 U.S. 315.
Under the Original JUDICIARY ACT, the District of Columbia was NOT a State.
So, if under the New Judiciary Act, the District of Columbia is now a State on an equal footing with all the current States in the NEW UNION, is STATE OF WASHINGTON or STATE OF CALIFORNIA or STATE OF MISSOURI States in the Original Sense of the meaning of the word "State" as in the 1st Original Judiciary Act as referred to in Hepburn Dundas v. Elzey ?????
Take a look at RULE 2 in both your State and Federal Court Rules printed by Lexus Publishing which authorized law and equity to be combined into one form of action called a civil action and thus the Roman Civil Law was brought into our law books.
Did CONGRESS ever authorize the States to combine law and equity into one form of action?
CONGRESS only gave authority to the TERRITORIES or POSSESSION or FEDERAL COURT'S authority to combine law and equity into ONE FORM OF ACTION CALLED CIVIL.
Also submit a FOIA or under State law a Public Disclosure Request to your City, your County and any Municipal Court, any District Court, any Superior Court and to your Supreme Court and ask them to provide you a copy of their FEDERAL TAX ID NUMBER.
Also submit a FOIA or State Public Disclosure Request to your local Municipal or District Court and ask them to provide a copy of the judge's pay stub and you will see that they are deducting Federal Income Taxes.
Can one Sovereign Tax another Sovereign.
The jurisdiction of a Federal Court of Admiralty is very narrow having been established only by direct grant under the constitution of the United States. A suit in Admiralty is designed to bring the "RES" before the court for adjudication. The "bottom" is sued and is made party defendant.
"The remedy saved to suitors by the judiciary code is the right to proceed in personam against the defendant. The Moses Taylor, supra. With respect to actions in rem, the applicable principle, amply supported by authorities, is stated by Benedict, as follows: The right to proceed in rem is the distinctive remedy of the admiralty and hence administered exclusively by the United States courts in admiralty: no State can confer jurisdiction upon its courts to proceed in rem, nor could Congress give such power to a State, since it would be contrary to the constitutional grant of such power to the Federal Government. The saving clause of the Judiciary Act and of the Judicial Code does not contemplate admiralty in a common law court." 1 Benedict on Admiralty (6th ed.) 38, section 23.
. . . Moreover, the broad language of the opinion in one of these cases, Taylor v. Steamer Columbia (California), to the effect that the states have the power to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon their own courts, was expressly disavowed in the later California case of Fischer v. Carey, supra. In another of these cited cases, The Alcalde, supra, the Federal court specifically refused to pass upon the question of whether the state trial court had erred in appointing a receiver to take legal custody of the vessel.
The fundamental purpose of Art. III, section 2, of the Federal constitution was to "preserve adequate harmony and appropriate uniform rules relating to maritime matters and bring them within the control of the Federal Government." Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149, 64 L.Ed. 834, 40 S. Ct. 438, 11 A.L.R. 1145. The saving clause was never intended as a device whereby litigants could escape the uniform application of the established principles of admiralty law, as contemplated by the constitution. This is indicated by such decisions as Southern Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 217, 61 L.Ed. 1086, 37 S. Ct. 524; Chelentis v. Luckenbach, S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372, 384, 62 L.Ed. 1171, 38 S. Ct. 501; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, supra; and Washington v. W.C. Dawson Co., 264 U.S. 219, 68 L.Ed. 646, 44 S. Ct. 302 (affirming 122 Wash. 572).
 We therefore conclude that the courts of this state do not have jurisdiction, concurrent or otherwise, over the particular kind of action stated in appellant's amended complaint.
"The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States to administer relief by proceeding in rem in Admiralty is unquestionably exclusive. Such proceeding, however, is against the property only. The distinguishing and characteristic feature of such suit is, that the vessel or thing proceeded against is itself seized and impleaded as the defendant, and is judges and sentenced accordingly. It is this dominion of a suit in Admiralty over the vessel or thing itself which gives the title made under its decree validity against all the world. (Citing The Moses Taylor, 4 WALL. 411). No person is a defendant in such a suit. Parties who have real or personal interests determine for themselves whether they will appear and protect their interests. When a sale is made in such a proceeding, it is good against the whole world. No such remedy was sought here. This was a suit against persons. No one would be bound by decree herein except those made parties. A sale, though purporting to be of the property, would really be only a sale of the interests of the defendants therein. A personal decree for the deficiency, if any, might follow. The equitable circumstances before mentioned, growing out of the sale and assignment, a denial of possession, intention to seize the property, the duty of McCaffery to protect it from a rise of the river, and the obstacles to so doing put in his way by the Knapp Company, all furnish ground for equitable cognizance. We cannot hold that because a proceeding against the raft in Admiralty might afford some conflict, therefore a court of equity must keep its hand off, if equitable circumstances exist which justify its granting relief on well established equitable principles against persons made defendants. Moreover, if the case had any likeness to a suit in rem in Admiralty when it was started, it lost that distinctive character when the Knapp Company at its own request, took the raft and left a personal bond in its place. Thereafter the suit was wholly in personam." Citing Johnson vs. The Chicago Etc. Elevator Company, 119 U.S. 388, Gindele vs. Corrigan, 28 Ill. App. 476, 129 Ill. 582, 16 Am. St. Rep. 292."
Furthermore, our State Supreme Court has disclaimed any jurisdiction over maritime torts. West v. Martin, 47 Wash. 417, 92 Pac. 334.
Also, the case law says that IN REM proceedings must proceed in Admiralty Jurisdiction which by the Federal Constitution is granted SOLELY to the FEDERAL COURTS EXCLUSIVE OF THE STATES.
The States have NEVER been granted any authority by Congress to precede IN REM.
All Marriage and Divorce proceedings, custody of children or seizure of property is exclusively conducted IN REM.
ALL court's are in fact and law LOWER DISTRICT FEDERAL COURT'S.
WE HAVE NO STATE COURT'S IN EXISTENCE TODAY.
Look at the Original Session Laws creating the Court's in your State and you will find that it says in the first act creating that court that it is a LOWER DISTRICT FEDERAL COURT.
STATE OF WASHINGTON like every other STATE in existence today is in fact and law a FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION operating under TERRITORIAL LAW because ALL States in existence today are in fact and law Territories and Possession of the United States.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 1
 v. 
 v. 
In fine
 §4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.