      |
| |
By Dan Meador
Original (Dec. 4, 1999)
This memorandum was constructed for a judicial pleading. In Oklahoma, state and local officers are required to take a constitutional oath, then they take a "Loyalty Oath" prescribed by statute. The second oath is to a foreign government known as the "United States of America". This second decoy governmental entity is a key player in the Federalism scheme. The memorandum is therefore important for anyone who is interested in correcting usurpation of power.
Contrary to Article II § 12 and Article XV § 2 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, each of the defendants has taken a "Loyalty Oath" (51 Okla. Stat. § 36.2A) to the constitution and laws of the United States of America, a principal or "State" that is foreign to the United States and the de jure State of Oklahoma. Therefore, all official acts of the defendants are void, and rulings, decisions, and other acts under auspices of the said United States of America or the presumption that Oklahoma is a legitimate participant in this nonconstitutionalalliance are nullities.
Because of the subtle nature of Federalism, also known as Cooperative Federalism, distinction between the "United States" and the "United States of America" isn’t normally noticed as the two names are similar. Few people are aware that what should really be known as the "Federal United States of America" was formally established after 1908 and prior to 1918, it is not the original "United States of America" established by Article I of the Articles of Confederation and mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. However, each defendant named in this petition has had ample notice that the "United States of America" identified in the Loyalty Oath is a foreign principal.
At Article I § 1, the Oklahoma constitution complies with the mandate of Article VI ¶ 2 of the Constitution of the United States by declaring, "The State of Oklahoma is an inseparable part of the Federal Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land." Then in compliance with Article VI ¶ 3 of the Constitution ofthe United States, Article VX § 1 of the Oklahoma constitution requires state officers to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the wording as follows:
I, . . . . . . . . . ., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and that I will not, knowingly, receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other valuable thing, for the performance or nonperformance of any act or duty pertaining to my office, other than the compensation allowed by law; I furtherswear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my duties as . . . . . . . . . to the best of my ability. [Underscore added for emphasis]
The Loyalty Oath, prescribed at 51 Okla. Stat. § 36.2A, requires allegiance to the foreign [Federal] United States of America, wording as follows:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support theConstitution and the laws of the United States of America and theConstitution and the laws of the State of Oklahoma, and that I will faithfully discharge, according to the best of my ability, the duties of my office or employment during such time as I am ______________________. [Underscore added for emphasis]
Distinction between the "United States" and the "United States of America" is demonstrated via the definition of "State" at Article II(a) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (22 Okla. Stat. § 1347):
As used in this agreement:
"State" shall mean a state of the United States; the UnitedStates of America; a territory or possession of the United States; the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. [Underscore added for emphasis]
Article II(a) of the agreement demonstrates that the "United States ofAmerica" is a geographical entity that constitutes a jurisdiction foreign to the United States and the several States, including Oklahoma. It is a foreign principal.
The "United States of America" first appeared as a principal of interest in federal statutes in 1918 (Oct. 23, 1918, c. 194, 40 Stat. 1015, amending 1909 legislation where the "United States of America" did not appear). The 1918 legislation is precisely reproduced at 18 U.S.C. § 80, 1934 & 1940 editions:
§ 80. (Criminal Code [1909], section 35, amended.)Presenting false claims. Whoever shall make or cause to be made or present, or cause to be presented, for payment or approval, to or by any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or any department thereof, or any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, any claim upon or against the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, or any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent; or whoever shall knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make or cause to be made any false or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use or cause tobe made or used any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or of any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder shallbe fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, orboth. [Underscore added for emphasis]
In more recent editions of the United States Code, including the current edition (1994), the "United States of America" does not appear in the amended section, now 18 U.S.C. § 1001, but historical and statutory notes following the section demonstrate that this recently createdentity is an instrumentality of the United States:
Words "or any corporation in which the United States ofAmerica is a stockholder" in said § 80 [1940 ed] were omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of "agency" in § 6 of this title.
The relevant portion of the current 18 U.S.C. § 6 is as follows:
The term "agency" includes any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the United States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such term was intended to be used in a more limited sense.
An "agency" of the United States, including the United States of America entity, is a political subdivision or instrumentality of the United States that exists under authority and at the pleasure of United States Government. Oklahoma and other States of the Union are not subject toplenary power of the United States, as is this federal United States of America. It is relevant that in approximately 1916, Congress by statute adopted the "Constitution of the United States" as the "Constitution of the United States of America" (i.e., "Guam, U.S.A."). Subsequent to this statutory adoption, Congress conferred blanket citizenship on people of various insular possessions (Puerto Rico in 1917, the Virgin Islands in 1927, Guam & American Samoa in 1961, etc.), thus the basic alliance of the latter United States of America is comprised of jurisdictions subject to sovereignty of the United States, exclusive of the Union of several States party to the Constitution of the United States.
Status of insular possessions ceded to the United States following theSpanish American War (1898) and since was determined in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) and three other insular tax cases decided in the 1901-1904 period. Prior to the Spanish-American war, cession treaties assured that territory ceded to the United States would become States of the Union, and people of the various territories were assured constitutionally secured rights, privileges and benefits. However, this was not the case for Puerto Rico, the Philippines, etc., so via Downes and the other insular tax cases, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with rationalizing acquisition of territory not incorporated in the constitutional scheme. Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the series of divided, contested decisions, ruled that insular possessions not incorporated in the constitutional scheme are "foreign" to the United States and the Union of several States. The territories are governed more as British crown colonies than former territories destined to become States of the Union, they enjoy constitutional rights and protections only as Congress chooses to extend them, and Congress has plenary power over them. Where the Tenth Amendment limits exercise of federal power within the several States to thoseenumerated in the Constitution, Congress can allegedly do whatever the Constitution does not expressly prohibit in insular possessions subject toabsolute sovereignty of the United States.
Particularly after 1913, Congress abandoned Article I delegated powersin favor of these colorable territorial powers. By 1926 when the first edition of the United States Code was published, Congress had revised or repealed most legislation applicable to the Union and the American people at large in favor of legislation (1) applicable to insular possessions and the District of Columbia, and (2) applicable to officers and employees of United States Government and governments of instrumentalities of the United States. Thus, the subtle acknowledgments in applications at Rule 54(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, pertaining to "Act of Congress"and "State":
(c) Application of Terms. As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings."Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.
"State" includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular possession.
One of the better evidences of this limited application of federal law is the Social Security Act. In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Agriculture Adjustment Act, the Industrial Recovery Act, and the first effort to implement a national social welfare program unconstitutional. Limits of Congress’ constitutionally enumerated powers relativeto social welfare were articulated in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Company:
The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? It is not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co=2E, 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935)
The Social Security Act was subsequently enacted under auspicesof a treaty, but application has never lawfully been to States of the Union even though each of the several States, including Oklahoma, has participated in the unconstitutional scheme via various devices, including amendments to state constitutions. So far as geographical limits of the federal program are concerned, definitions of "State", "United States", and "citizen" at 26 CFR § 31.3121(e)-1 are conclusive:
§ 31.3121(e)-1 State, United States, and citizen.(a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term "State"includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa.
(b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term "United States", when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect toservices performed after 1960, the term "United States" also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term "citizen of the United States" includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
Since amendment of the above regulation, the Northern Mariana Islands has been added to the family of insular possessions now included in the alliance or political compact known as the "United States of America". Thefive major insular possessions are Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. For some purposes, theDistrict of Columbia is treated as a "State" of the federal United States of America. The alliance is exclusive of the several States party to the Constitution, yet by the 1930s, state and local public officials were accommodating the Federalism scheme under color of state law. The alliancewas formalized via various declarations of intergovernmental dependence endorsed in the 1930s and after. They in effect established "form" governments that operate somewhat like plastic transparencies covering constitutionally legitimate state and local governments, making constitutions of the United States and the several States, respectively, of little or no effect.
The several States, respectively or collectively, cannot accommodate exercise of Federal authority which is not among constitutionally enumerated powers without first securing a constitutional amendment (New York v. United States, et al, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed. 2d 120 (1992)). Yet via the Federalism/Cooperative Federalism scheme, they respectively and collectively implement Federal programs such as the familyof social welfare and income tax laws Congress enacted for U.S. government personnel and insular possessions of the United States. They do this under the presumption of federal United States of America status.
U.S. Attorney General delegations of authority in Part 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations further demonstrate that the federal United States of America is in fact (1) geographical in nature, and (2) foreign to the United States and the several States.
At 28 CFR § 0.55(b), the Assistant Attorney General over the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice is charged with responsibility for, "Cases involving criminal frauds against the United States 3;" Then at 28 CFR § 0.64-1, he has separate authority relating to the "United States of America" where this entity is party to treaties:
The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division shall have the authority and perform the functions of the "Central Authority" or "Competent Authority" (or like designation) under treaties and executive agreements between the United States of America andother countries on mutual assistance in criminal matters… [Underscore added for emphasis]
Attorney General delegations of authority to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons are even clearer on the matter as the delegation relating tothe "United States of America" includes the "United States" and the "United States of America" in the same sentences and paragraphs:
§ 0.96 Delegations.The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is authorized to exercise orperform any of the authority, functions, or duties conferred or imposed upon the Attorney General by any law relating to the commitment, control,or treatment of persons (including insane prisoners and juvenile delinquents) charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States.
§ 0.96b Exchange of prisoners.
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons and officers of the Bureau of Prisons designated by him are authorized to receive custody of offenders and to transfer offenders to and from the United States of America under a treaty as referred to in Public Law 95-144; to make arrangements with the States and to receive offenders from the States for transfer to a foreign country; to act as an agent of the United States to receive the delivery from a foreign government of any person being transferredto the United States under such a treaty; to render to foreign countries and to receive from them certifications and reports required under atreaty; and to receive custody and carry out the sentence of imprisonment of such a transferred offender as required by that statute and any suchtreaty. [Underscore added for emphasis]
The United States Code variously establishes that the "United States" is the principal of interest where federal civil and criminal matters areconcerned. For criminal, 18 U.S.C. § 3231 specifies, "The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction … of all offenses against the laws of the United States." Where litigation for delinquent tax is concerned (26 U.S.C. § 7402), "The district courts of the United States at the instance of the United States shall have such jurisdiction…" Where the United States is plaintiff in a civil action (28 U.S.C. § 1345), the following: "Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions … commenced by the United States…"
Finally, at Article III § 2, the Constitution of the United States affirms proper phrasing in the oath prescribed at Article XV § 1 of the Oklahoma constitution: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States…"
In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803), former Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court stated the obvious, asapplicable not only to the Constitution of the United States, but the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma: "All laws which are repugnant to theConstitution are null and void."
It is understandable that public officers and employees might unknowingly, and therefore unintentionally subscribe to the Loyalty Oath prescribed at 51 Okla. Stat. § 36.2A. However, where they have individually and collectively been provided actual and constructive notice that the Loyalty Oath is to a foreign principal, and they continue to act under auspices of the foreign principal, the repugnant Code section creates no right, benefit or immunity. Where matters at issue are concerned, Article II § 12 and Article XV § 2 of the Oklahoma constitution are governing:
§ 12. Officers of United States or other states &endash; Ineligibility to officeNo member of Congress from this State, or person holding any office oftrust or profit under the laws of any other State, or of the United States, shall hold any office of trust or profit under the laws of this State.
§ 2. Administration and filing of oath &endash; Refusal to take &endash; False swearing
The foregoing oath shall be administered by some person authorized to administer oaths, and in the case of State officers and judges of the Supreme Court, shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State, and in case of other judicial and county officers, in the office of the clerk of the county in which the same is taken; any person refusing to take said oath, or affirmation, shall forfeit his office, and any person who shall have been convicted of having sworn or affirmed falsely, or having violated said oath, or affirmation, shall be guilty of perjury, and shall be disqualified from holding any office of trust or profit within the State....
The nature of the conflict is obvious. The axiom, "No man can serve two masters," (Luke 16:13), has been restated time and again in judicial decisions, among them being Jeffery v. Pounds, 67 Cal.App.3d 6, 136 Cal.Reptr. 373 (1977), Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinema, Inc., 528 F.2d 1384 (1976), and Easly v. Brookline Trust Co., 256 S.W.2d 983. The Loyalty Oath accommodates a form State and the foreign "United States of America", so is condemned by Article II § 12 of the Oklahoma constitution, and when those in public office knowingly act contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as the Constitution and original acts of the State of Oklahoma, they effectively perjure the constitutional oath prescribed at Article XV § 1 of the Oklahoma constitution.
Where knowledge and intent are absent, acts under colorable authority of the de facto form State which are contrary to constitutions of the United States and the State of Oklahoma are necessarily void, but absent knowledge and therefore intent, public servant liability might be forgiven. However, where actual and constructive notice have been provided, liability necessarily attaches. Defendants named in this petition have respectively and collectively received more than adequate notice.
*****
Memorandums by Dan Meador and other researchers can be downloaded from Internet on the Law Research & Registry web site: www.LawResearch-Registry.org
In court? Need assistance? Jurisdictionary®
