Source: https://adask.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/21-u-s-c-%C2%A7-321a1-definition-of-the-word-state/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:19:05+00:00

Document:
← Tuesday Night Radio: Racism, Homophobia, Ninth Amendment, more.
• But, there’s more to 21 U.S.C. § 321 than insight into how our government has sought to degrade us into “animals”. There are also subsections that can help us understand the meaning of “state” and “human,” etc..
What follows is subsection (a) of 21 U.S.C. § 321 that defines “State”. This definition offers valuable insight into the difference between States of the Union (“The United States of America”) and the territorial/administrative “States of the United States”.
This article on subsection (a) is the first in a series of articles that attempt to dissect some of the definitions in 21 U.S.C. § 321. I’m not arguing that my analyses are God’s truth. I’m simply presenting my analysis du juor.
You can find a complete and pristine copy of 21 U.S.C. § 321 at Findlaw.com.
The Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781 created/constituted a confederation and “perpetual Union” named “The United States of America”. That Union is “perpetual”. It’s still here. That Union consists only of States of the Union—it does not include any territories of the United States, or districts like Washington DC.
The Constitution of the United States (ratified and established by the people in A.D. 1788) was intended to “form a more perfect Union”. That Union was the perpetual Union created by the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution created a new entity called the “United States”. The “United States” and “The United States of America” appear to be two separate and distinct “jurisdictions”. Washington DC and the territories like Puerto Rico, TX, IL and NY are part of the “United States”—but they are not included within “The United States of America” because that entity/jurisdiction includes only States of the Union.
• When we read the definition of “State” at21 U.S.C. § 321(a)(1), we see that whatever kind of “State” they’re defining, it’s not a “State of the Union” (“The United States of America”) because the definition includes entities like the “District of Columbia” and Puerto Rico and “Territory of the United States”. These territories and districts are completely different from the States of the Union found in the Articles of Confederation. These “States of the United States” are territorial or administrative in nature and do not secure the rights that are guaranteed within States of the Union.
Note that I read the phrase “State or Territory of the United States” to mean “State [of the United States] or Territory of the United States”. These “State[s] are not “States of the Union” (of “The United States of America”).
99.9% of Americans presume that if I say “Texas,” “TX,” “STATE OF TEXAS” and “The State of Texas” I’m talking about the same place/venue/jurisdiction. I not only disagree with that presumption, I regard it as a (perhaps, the) principal lie by means of which we are deceived into accepting non-constitutional government and the police state as lawful within the current “states”.
I believe that a State of the Union (State of The United States of America) is not a “State of the United States”. I believe these are two different and mutually exclusive jurisdictions or political “planes”. You can be in “Texas” or you can be within “The State of Texas,” but you can’t be in both at the same time. To be in “Texas” is to be in a “State or territory of the United States”. To be within the borders of “The State of Texas” is to be within a State of the Union (State of The United States of America).
The “States of the United States” defined at 21 USC § 321(a)(1) are the second venue, the territorial venue, the fictional venue wherein Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States (which grants the federal government only a few “limited powers” within the States of the Union) has little or no legal effect.
Why? Because under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories and other properties of the United States such as States of the United States. Within a “territory,” Congress are the sovereigns or aristocracy. Within a “territory of the United States” or “State of the United States,” you are, at best, a subject and frequently deemed to be an “animal”.
Under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress has limited powers within the States of the Union (States of The United States of America).
Under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has virtually unlimited powers over the territories of the United States and over the “States of the United States”.
Within the States of The United States of America, you are a sovereign.
Within the “States of the United States” and “territories of the United States,” you’re a subject, animal, human resource or slave.
• If you want to claim your God-given, unalienable Rights (as declared in the “Declaration of Independence”) in the capacity of a “man made in God’s image” (as per Genesis 1:26-28), I believe you’d better do whatever you can to rebut the presumption that you’re in a “state or territory of the United States” and do whatever you can to establish a claim that you’re living within a “State of The United States of America”—State of the Union like “The State of Texas” (not TX) or “The State of Illinois” (not IL), etc..
One very strong suspicion in this hypothesis is that Zip Codes only exist in the territories and/or states of the United States. I don’t believe that there are any Zip Codes within the States of the Union (The United States of America). If I’m right, your voluntary use of Zip Codes on your mail, your address, etc. is probably deemed evidence sufficient to justify the presumption that you have voluntarily left your State of the Union and/or “The United States of America” and voluntarily entered into a “State or territory of the United States.” If you have voluntarily entered into a state or territory of the United States, you are (at best) a subject, and Congress is you sovereign. As a subject you’ll enjoy no meaningful rights.
• I believe that the laws and regulations that apply under Title 21 of the United State Code (and probably most of the other 50-odd Title of the USC) apply within the “United States” (created/constituted by the “Constitution of the United States” first ratified by the People in A.D. 1788) but do not apply within “The United States of America” (created/constituted by the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781).
If that distinction is true, and if you can grasp and argue that distinction effectively, you might be able to keep the feds off your back.
• These fantastic allegations will make more sense to you if you read the Articles of Confederation and note that there’s no proviso for a “district” like Washington DC or a “territory” like Guam, the US Virgin Islands or even the “Territory of Ohio” (before it was admitted to the Union) or the “Territory of Alaska” (before it was admitted to the Union).
I speculate that authors of the Article of Confederation were so busy fighting the English and praying to God that they merely survive the conflict, that it never occurred to then that those 13 States might one day become 14 or even 50. The Articles of Confederation made virtually no proviso for adding territories or States to the “perpetual Union”.
Much to their surprise, the thirteen States of The United States of America defeated the English—the world’s only super-power. Emboldened by their extraordinary victory, I suspect that they began to think about defeating other governments, powers and Indian tribes and thereby adding more territory (and later States) to their Union.
But much to their surprise, there was virtually no proviso in the Articles of Confederation to add more territories or States of the Union. Therefore, they began to deal with the problem of acquiring territories and then converting those territories into States of the Union in the Northwest Ordinance of A.D. 1787 and then the Constitution of the United States (first ratified by the people in A.D. 1788).
There’ve been other explanations offered to justify the Constitution as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation such as the need for a stronger, central taxing authority. But I strongly suspect a primary reason, perhaps the primary reason, for establishing the Constitution was to provide the legal foundation for acquiring territories of the United States and then converting those territories into States of The United States of America.
• An important point to understand is that the Constitution of the United States created a “United States” that was added to, but did not replace the confederation and perpetual Union called “The United States of America”.
To make a “more perfect Union” presupposes that 1) some “Union” must have existed prior to the Constitution; and, 2) the Constitution would be ratified to make that preexisting Union even “more perfect”. That “Union,” of course was The United States of America. Thus, the Constitution did not replace that Union—it only “amended” it (in a sense) and made it “more perfect”.
I think the Union was primarily made “more perfect” by creating a legal procedure whereby territories could be acquired and later converted into States of the Union.
• Note that that Union styled “The United States of America” was expressly declared to be “perpetual” in the Articles of Confederation and thus must exist to this day. There is no proviso in the Articles of Confederation or in the Constitution to terminate or destroy the “perpetual Union styled ‘The United States of America.’” Thus, while the “United States” is not perpetual and could theoretically cease to exist, “The United States of America” is perpetual and might exist forever.
• Also, because the Founders failed to attach a specific title to the document that we’ve come to call the “Constitution of the United States,” some have read the last phrase in the Preamble (“do ordain and establish his Constitution for the United States of America.”) to indicate that the proper title for the document is the “Constitution for the United States of America”.
I think the Founders told us in the Preamble that the document they called the “Constitution” was written and ordained “for” the benefit of the preexisting, perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. The phrase “Constitution for the United States of America” is not the title of a document—it’s a statement of the purpose of that document and the government it “constituted”: to serve the best interests of preexisting Union called “The United States of America”.
A document that could be described as “the constitution of the The United States of America” would be the document that created or “constituted” the entity called “The United States of America”. It’s undeniable that the document that first expressly created or constituted the entity called “The United States of America” was the “Articles of Confederation”. Thus, the document we call the “Articles of Confederation” could be described as the constitution of The United States of America.
It follows that the document we call the “Constitution of the United States” created or constituted an entity other than “The United States of America”. Thus, the allegation that the proper name for the “Constitution” ratified in A.D. 1788 is the “Constitution for the United States of America” must fail since “The United States of America” had already been created/constituted by the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781.
• If this analysis is correct, it’s important.
Because if the “Constitution” (A.D. 1788) was ordained “for [the benefit of] the United States of America,” then there appears to be a trust relationship between the “United States” and “The United States of America”. Within that trust relationship, the States of “The United States of America” are the apparent beneficiaries and the “United States” is the apparent fiduciary. If so, the States of the Union (and perhaps the people therein) should be beneficiaries of the “Constitution of the United States”. On the other hand, those who work for the federal government of the United States should be fiduciaries for the people of The United States of America.
If you were a citizen of one of the States of the Union, you would be a beneficiary of the “Declaration of Independence,” Articles of Confederation, and probably the Constitution of the United States. But if you were a “citizen of the United States” (especially if you were presumed to inhabit a state or territory of the United States rather than a State of the Union), you might be presumed to be property of the United States in the same sense that animals, objects and slaves are property of the United States. As a property of the United States, you would be subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. Congress would be our sovereign. You would be only a subject, animal or slave.
• Next time, I’ll dig into the definition of “Territory” seen at 21 U.S.C. § 321(a)(2). Then, as time and energy allow, I’ll proceed to the other definitions in 21 U.S.C. § 321.
I have learned much from your work, and lately have been fighting here in California in the issue of state citizenship, and ‘this state’ etc.
Would you be open to a conversation privately, I think the blend of knowledge between us would be beneficial to many.
Perhaps you would consider being a guest on a future podcast on the Agenda 31 show with myself and Todd Mcgreevy.
It should now be clear WHERE and TO WHOM virtually ALL federal ‘law’ (statutes, codes and acts) actually apply, including the whole MOOA thing, obummercare, socialist security, etc.
The same information occurs regularly throughout TITLE 26, as well, just well-concealed or buried in little obscure places.
That’s a great collection of case cites in support of the “The State vs this state” hypothesis. Thanks.
In your quote, Jefferson says man – specifically, man endowed with natural rights (paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence) – is an “animal”.
While this could mean Jefferson was part of a “man or other animals” conspiracy by the Founders, maybe it simply proves the existence of a definition of “animal” that includes man.
Shouldn’t we prefer the simpler explanation?
Or perhaps a better word Jefferson could have used was “species”.
I find it ironic and very surreal that I am trying to parse a Jefferson statement!!
7 U.S.C. §136 (d) The term “animal” means all vertebrate and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other mammals, birds, fish, and shellfish.
Does anyone think the government’s use of this definition of “animal” infringes their 1st Amendment rights?
To be honest, the idea that man (ADAM man) is an animal comes from Talmudic JEWS EDOM/SERPENT). That is most likely why we had that MOOA inserted into that “ACT”. Do not doubt that. They call us “GOYIM” and treat us like cattle.
PROTOCOL No. 11:4 …”The GOYIM are a flock of sheep, and we are their wolves. And you know what happens when the wolves get hold of the flock? ….
Ezekiel 34:6-10 My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them. Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock; Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.
WE are true ISRAEL and they KNOW it. The proof is plain to see for those that will look.
Zephaniah 3 : 9 !!!! & Revelation 3: 9 !!!
You know the reasons I will allow your comments at edomsthorn . wordpress . com is because you speak in riddles and will not answer my questions as I try to understand just WHAT IS YOUR POINT! I am interested in what people have to say, but most will not have an adult conversation by participating in a debate where understanding can be achieved by the simple answer to a question.
So, if you would like to enlighten me, to exactly what your point is, and what “sepharvaim” has to do with the ENEMY of ADAMS seed, or anything else I presented, feel free to do so. I would like to bring and maintain the focus on the source of the DISEASE, and away from the symptoms. You distract from my intent, with who knows what.
Next time I will be sure to say @Alfred for example. I was not endorsing any comments other than Mr. Adask.
I was remiss and forgot to mention that I thoroughly enjoy and am eminently grateful for all that you do and the food for my grey matter that you provide Mr. Adask. I consider myself a lucky guy indeed to have been coming to your site and getting your email blasts for years now.
Moreover, the information gleaned from the comments section is consistently invaluable! Like Mr. Gary Lee’s cogent dissection above of USC codes and SC decisions.
So, if I understand you correctly Gary, Obummercare, etc. only apply to those in territories, but 99.9% of the population don’t understand what has been fostered upon them fraudulently and that they really don’t actually live (abide, reside, inhabit; you gotta be careful here) in a territory?
But what about “unless a contrary intent appears”?? Why was that added? Why couldn’t they have just left it alone and not added that disclaimer(?)? Could that be a slippery slope leveraged against man made in God’s image should push come to shove? I truly don’t know but am totally wary of “government” defining things to their benefit.
Biologically, Man is an animal. It is Man’s spirit that distinguishes him from the other animals.
if you dig deeper you will find that only a FEW of said ‘states’ or ‘States’ or ‘STATES’ in fact have corner stones or ‘metes and bounds’ as such are all based on what your particular ‘belief’ or self ‘conviction’ is… marks on a piece of paper do not a ‘genuine’ ‘boundary’ make, and a ‘sign post’ also is not a ‘valid boundary’ or ‘metes and bounds’ neither.
WHAT IF… a convicted murderer, waiting execution on death row, used the MOOA as a tool for a retrial, appealing that the state intends to use drugs only intended for animals, to kill him, and since he is not an “animal”, according to his (new found) religion of Christianity, he should not be subjected to any lethal “drug”. Could this tactic be used? Just a thought.
I think you’re right. Same applies to Obamacare. There is no health insurance without drugs or medical devices–both of which are defined in terms of “man or other animals”. Obamacare is required for animals.
Given that the Obamacare penalties are enforced by the IRS, the income tax is arguably being applied only for animals. If you can successfully argue that you’re a “man made in God’s image,” etc., you might be able to avoid paying income tax.
Just thinking about that Bond case where Justice Kennedy said, “…but the individual liberty secured by federalism is not simply derivative of the rights of the States”.
This tells me that an accusatory pleading would be necessary to attach the Food and Drug code to an individual. Just because one lives in or out of “this state”, “a state”, the “State” , doesn’t mean any of those “State laws” apply to them.
I can see that most of you are dazed and confused about our American reality.
United States Of America is a slave colony,citizens are debt slaves.
The creditors or the international bankers are the beneficiaries of the slave labor.
Corp.US is the agent and massa for the creditors.
America is a real geographical territory on Planet Earth.Some real people live here.
US Codes are part of corporate contractual system.
Some of you are good slaves and govern-ment lovers.
You would be better off talking about guillotine and the Babilonian Talmudic Laws.
So when Thomas Jefferson said man is an animal, you think he got the idea from reading the Talmud?
Has a copy of this book been found in his library?
Roger, perhaps you’re missing the larger point.
Jefferson wasn’t only speaking for himself when he said this. It wasn’t merely a personal philosophy he was revealing.
Jefferson said “we”, meaning himself and his fellow founding fathers. He said “we”, in establishing the United States, considered man an ANIMAL.
This means the man-or-other-animals conspiracy began long before the early 20th century.
In point of fact if you do the ‘deep digging’ one will find that it is quite ancient. Just one ‘hint’ is research the ‘sur name’ which was created by earlier king of england as a means to re-establish a tax on each man’s head “Wanted dead or alive” – ‘poll tax’ – thing back to possibly even before the globalistic Rome which was pre-England, for which one may find that even the ‘organic’ pre-Columbus ‘discovery’ – America was a part of the Roman Empire. Quite interesting.
Talmudic Terrorists cult compound in Palestine….
This is the last sentence in 21 USC 372 that is not covered by the definition in 21 USC 321 of “state”.
21 USC 372 (a)(4) For the purposes of this subsection, the term “United States” means the States and the District of Columbia.
Of course “state” and “states” have completely different meanings. The first is singular while the second envisions a group consisting of more than one.
Howsoever that were, the same king used (as I thinke) for the first 33. yeares of his reigne, to make his assignments and commissions to the Wardeins of the peace, not always severally into each shire, but sometimes jointly to sundry persons over sundrie shires: so I find a commission (2.E.3 part.2.patent indorso) made to William Roos and three others his companions, to be Wardeins of the peace, not onely in Lincolnshire, but also in three or foure of the other Counties thereunto next adjoining.
Ning of the former lawes (made 1.E.3.cap.15 & 3.4.E.3.cap2) where the same word is read (Everie Countie) in the Singular number. And therefore the Parliament (34.E.3.ca.I) restored ___ proper sense of these lawes, saying: In everie Countie of England there shall be assigned for the safe keeping of the Peace, one Lord, and with him, 3. or 4. of the mightiest men in that countie. And afterward it addeth, They shall have power to heare & determine (at the kings suit) al maner of Felonies & trespasses, done in the same County.
If you note that “shire” is part of “shire-reef’ which over time was combined to create “sheriff” you may find that what many claim the “sheriff” is ‘above’ the ‘police’ – in point of fact the “original” sheriff’s role was both tax collection and enforcement of the lords, barons and kings dictates… NOT “peace keepers” for “the people” rather for the People, note that capital P means ‘rulers’ while the lower p are the “common men” and not necessarily the ‘free men’… different ‘class’ or ‘status’ – check the first and second “census” generation and you will see a column title “free man” – quite interesting.
The term “animal” means any member of the animal kingdom (except a human).
The term “State” means any of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any territory or possession of the United States.
The term “United States” means all of the States.
and do Not have the Same Definition.
Different words have Different meanings.
then the first Human was born.
Humans mating with Apes is Beastiality.
God created the People in My family.
Back to the Animal in law.
Are you saying that 7 USC § 8302, in excluding “humans” under its definition of “animal”, does not also exclude “man”, because “human” and “man” are different?
Do you interpret this to mean that, according to the U.S. Code, though a “human” is not an animal, a “man” is?
Which one came from Animals?
which implies they are Animals.
and people are So important.
that is why Reading the Bible is so important.
until people start believing them.
in this War of Words.
The word human is from Cicero’s homo humanus, which was originally used to distinguish Romans from other people.
encourage one to research implications of “human” ‘human being’ ‘res-i-dent’ – denting the res; citizen (military), civilian (Rome), person (corporate vs fiduciary TRUST), as well as various implications of “title” i.e. mister, misses, mam, esquire, etc. If you ‘dig deep’ you may find some interesting and disgusting contemplation. I have over time built a digital library from “sources of authority” that validate any ‘term’ other than man, including wo-man (man with wo) is in some capacity corrupted. My preference is either man\womb or womb-man – fully equal, just the %50 Scittish in me – father’s side 100% Scottish (chuckle) – loved Braveheart (spelling) as well as more possibly historically accurate “Robin Hood” and French “Three Musketeers” movies. They brin back the concept of not “mob rule” rather love and compassion for ALL men\womb – each respecting the other as equal.
17018. “State” includes the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States.
The term ”State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
The term ”State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
(d) The term ”State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to regulate militia. The right to bear arms is a right to FLAGS AND SEALS AND COATS OF ARMS. This right comes to us from the feudal period and these devices are regulated by a Heraldic College. Most people mistake the 2nd amendment right as a right to bear firearms. The right to bear firearms is a natural right that derives from your right to self-defense.
Perhaps then according to title 4 the right to form a state involves the right to FLAGS AND SEALS. They want to abolish the 2nd amendment and they want to use needless senseless violence to do it when perhaps the true motive is to eliminate these three devices from the arsenal of the state (FLAGS, SEALS and COATS OF ARMS).
I’m thinking the more important part is WHERE “this state” actually exists, as Alfred often ponders….and I am not sure I have ever seen an argument wherein I believe for one second that the 2nd amendment is about coats of arms, as opposed to weapons to prevent tyranny or abuse of the powers of the Constitution, as it says in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. My point here was merely federal and State definitions for “this state”.
This entire scheme was accomplished by passage of the “Buck Act”, (4 U.S.C.S. Secs. 105-113), to implement the application of the “Public Salary Tax Act” of 1939 to workers within the private sector. This subjects all private sector workers (who have a Social Security number) to all state and federal laws “within this State”, a “fictional Federal area” overlaying the land in California and in all other states in the Union. In California, this is established by California Form 590, Revenue and Taxation. All you have to do is to state that you live in California. This establishes that you do not live in a “Federal area” and that you are exempt from the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 and also from the California Income Tax for residents who live “in this State”.
YOU are the only state that exists and YOU get to define what your words mean and more importantly what contracts you choose to engage in or not to engage in as the case may be. May people fail to distinguish between the government and the state. The secretary of state is YOUR secretary. When was the last time you sent him a writ of Mandamus directing his day to day activity?
I prefer to stay with reason as I am not licensed to argue.
As was pointed out on Adask’s blog and podcast the acts of Harry Truman on or about June 20th, AD1948 in passing a bill into public law while congress was adjourned was the event that ultimately changed the course of the ship of state.
There are two kinds of beings: plants with chlorophyll and animals with hemoglobin.
Man,person,people,City,State, country,resident,cityzen are political in nature.
Politics is a body of rites and customs established by the human beings in organized communities.
Human being is part of animals,a natural existence.
the word ” man ” is Not political.
neither is ” people ” .
Territory is an aspect of empire.
Just trying to get the word out.
That’s fine with me. Thanks.
I thjink you are either missing the point, or messing with me! ; ) “this state” exists in a totally different venue than I do. “this state” exists in the same corporate world as the UNITED STATES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, etc.: federal territories. I am NOT there. I am however posting THEIR rules from THEIR codes and such, the only apply in THEIR venue (federal territories), not mine.
As for the “secretary of state”, they work for the private corporation STATE OF CALIFORNIA, in this case, or the UNITED STATES, in the big picture, not for the de jure California Republic, swept under the carpet in 1879, in hopes no one would notice, so she ( in this case Debra Bowen) is NOT my secrretary, she is the private corporation STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S secretary, and that is in a different venue than where I am. I am NOT a federal citizen, I do NOT have and SSN, or ANY other form of GovCo identification or licenses.
Haven’t seen a court of common law, either wherein I could file a ‘writ of mandamus’, only courts of equity (private corporations that are subsidiaries of the corporation UNITED STATES or one of its “STATE” subsidiaries, that all exist in those federal territory venues, of which I have no part, so, “NO”, I haven’t filed any writs lately, as that is in a whole different ‘nation’, foreign to the several states of the Union styled The United States of America, c.1777 (hope I got the date right for the Articles of Confederation), which is the venue at which I exist.
You are the only state THAT EXISTS.
If you want access to Common Law courts ask Roy Ben Shadler.
and conduct court under the Common Law.
important to specify either local or English “Common Law” otherwise in most cases you will not be told “which” unless you specify or ask – VERY different between the two. My preference is natural law – lawful – to any “legal” contrived and manipulated “law form”.
Can states legitimately direct and Coerce Non-consenting subjects?
Public law is concerned with the Justification and Limits of Judicial power.
statutory language against the apparent intention of the legislature?
are appropriate to these exercises of judicial power?
that yields novel answers to both sets of questions.
grounds the state’s authority to announce and enforce law.
charged with guaranteeing a regime of secure and equal freedom.
to respect legal principles constitutive of the rule of law.
and the problem of Discretionary power in Administrative law.
and develops the argument through three parts.
of the fiduciary theory of the state.
for Administrative law and Common law Constitutionalism.
He has worked on human rights and democratic governance reform in Latin America since 1987.
and Canada’s International Development Research Centre.
the Structure, Principles, themes, and objectives of fiduciary law.
are entrusted with money or Power.
offer protection from Abuse of this method of Safekeeping.
falls short of offering protection.
that greater preventive measures are required.
can contribute to failing Financial and Economic systems.
as well as the fiduciaries and Entrustors.
as a means of encouraging fiduciary services in society.
designing the future law and the Systems that it protects.
The STATE is a corporation. ITS agents act as fiduciaries for the owners of the corp.
You and I do not own that corp.STATE.
Agree. But I think State is a organization where people have common interests.

References: § 321
 § 321
 § 321
 § 321
 § 321
 § 321
 § 321
 § 321
 §136
 § 8302