(Thanks, C. :)

(My impression: The Constitution with a dozen or so amendments has -not- been terminated but appears to have been functionally overlaid by the "Corp US" one, without identifying that fact to the People. It's been said that initially our elected 'officials' held positions in both the true government offices and also in the Corp US ones, but that beginning about 1914, incumbent and newly elected 'officials' were and have been seated in the Corp US offices only, leaving the true governmental ones vacant.

In seeking to identify parties to contracts, one would need to consider statements by Anna Von Reitz (and others) concerning distinctions between the People, Lawful Persons, Legal Persons, American Nationals, State citizens, and federal citizens. In other words, while any action requires that a living man or woman provide consciousness and capacity for it, the action taken may be in the realm of one kind of legal fiction or another and not binding upon living men or women. This applies to those providing consciousness and capacity for the judiciary as well as for other fictions in the realm of commerce.)

Reader Charles Miller writes:

***************************************************************************

Re: Reader Charles: 'I believe these questions....

Thank you Hobie for your comments. These open a dialogue where the facts, written, dated, public record may be reviewed.

AMEND: transitive verb: 1. to put right. Merriam-Webster.

“ RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Reading the foundational documents as written, fully identifying the parties, their capacities, the intent expressed in the writings, the intended result and the actions based on those results clarifies the issues.

Any one believing there is more than one national constitution misses the essential elements of the documents them selves and what they say in black and white, as dated and archived. More to the point where, when, how and by whom was the original national Constitution cancelled or terminated?

The Bill of Rights, puts right, the Constitution on orders of the derivative servant parties the states, acting for their principals the good People. The People ordered the Amendments for their purpose, the agents carried out the orders. The language is clear or it is not.

Please reflect on the question of who holds the position to determine their rights and duties in contract. In the case of dispute one of or both of the parties purchase a contract to have a neutral 3rd party determine the rights and duties. That is what courts are for. Courts deal with and enforce the law of the contract. Courts are never authorized to alter or change the contract.

There is another article on RMN that might help clear up confusions on the positions that can terminate a contract. Positions and parties are very often different legal capacities.

TJ and Scuba, perhaps you might explain how the Documents created by servants or their associates, masters or controllers, your constitution, controls, alters, amends or voids the original constitution as amended by both principals, the People, and the agents to them along with the Congress made up of states creating the constitution.

The reason I identify the papers you apparently hold loyalty to as, your constitution, is you give those papers credence in the face of the facts on record.

It appears to me that refusal recognize the original contracts creating governments is first hand testimony, and that those giving credence to fraudulent, usurpatious overlays of valid archived before the the world public records, have made a choice to live in that fraudulent world rather than the one that protects the rights to choose political loyalties.

It appears to me that those refusing to answer simple straight forward questions either do not understand the question or have no answered.

For my self I refuse to cooperate with frauds, particularly when the obvious intent is to alter the operations of legitimate governments created by the good People’s contracts.

Perhaps you fellows might explain why the foundational documents I cited are not contracts between the People.

“ ……in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies,…… “.

If that statement in the last paragraph of the Declaration does not identify a contract and the parties what does it identify? What purpose does it serve in the Declaration?

My last question to both TJ and Scuba is, why are you so protective of your positions when production of the documents you rely on might resolve all questions and assist others in their understanding for them selves?

Inquiring minds would like to know!

***************************************************************************