Dear Reader I,

This is an interesting question which really can only be answered, in a legal manner based upon American law, by an experienced American Lawyer specialising in Constitutional Law of the USA.

However, I will gladly give you my legal view on the subject based upon what I know.

I assume that you are referring to the USA Corporation not the Constitutional USA. Like you I have read many legal writings on this subject and basically from what I can determine is that Laws enacted by the USA Corporation cannot be imposed upon the various States of the USA and therefore are restricted to the District of Columbia.
The above is the opposite to the Constitutional USA whereby Laws enacted by the Constitutional Government are enforceable in all States of the USA.

The above is a simple explanation of the difference in law between the Corporate USA and the Constitutional USA.

Unfortunately there is a twist to all of this, which is as follows:-

1) The Corporate USA appears to be various structured Corporations implemented and operating under the authority of the Constitutional USA and as enacted by the elected Government of the Constitutional USA. Therefore any law enacted by an authority of the Constitutional USA is enforceable throughout the USA.

2) Another issue here is the election of your Senators and Congressmen/women. When elected by the people and they take oath of office, as does the President of the USA, they swear to uphold the Constitution, which actually means that they are elected under and in compliance with the Constitution.

Of course what they do after they are elected appears to be that they then work as a Government within many separate authorities. In other words the Corporate USA.

I have read various articles which imply that by using Corporations within the operations of Government, allows not only Maritime Law to be applied, but also allows the Constitutional Government to hide from any litigation as such litigation must be enacted against the Corporate USA. This in fact is a good valid point which has yet to be proven in a Court of Law. Whether it will be in the future is questionable and would depend upon many factors.

I would not like to be the lawyer handling such matters in court as it would be a “Minefield” and one that could cost millions of Dollars for anyone attempting such legal action.

3) A third point of issue here is if the Constitutional Government is, or has been acting outside of the Constitution when it operates through the Corporate USA authorities.

This is an issue very similar to Corporate Law covering corporations. Such corporations have an Articles and Memorandum of Association which defines their objectives and the limitations they can operate under. Go outside the objectives , or breach the limitations as defined, and you would be in breach of the Articles and Memorandum of Association and thus breaking the law.

In my opinion, there has to be a full Independent Legal Inquiry, by a qualified Commission, into the issue between a Corporate USA and a Constitutional USA to legally determine if the Constitutional USA have actually operated outside the scope of the Constitution, and if so the law amended to bring in the necessary changes to the law.

People can surmise, opinionate, give legal views, or otherwise, but same does not answer the real question or give comfort to the people.

That is about all I can say on the subject because I do not specialise in American Law. By the way, I am informed that last year (2015), sorry I am jumping ahead by a few days, America enacted over 30,000 individual laws.

This keeps the Lawyers in business but totally confuses the people who don’t really know if they are breaking the law in their everyday life.

On to the second part of your question regarding of which your comments are, quote “- Is the jurisdiction to so impose responsibility for repayment of such fraudulant debts, incurred by the US Government Inc., come from the ITC/IOTC? If not, from whom? “
My answer to this will probably confuse you even more because it does not rest, nor can it be determined under the law of America, whether Corporate of Constitutional.

There are two issues here which I will explain:-

1) When the USA joined the United Nations it must submit its Constitution to the United Nations whereby the United Nations determine any actions, laws, regulations, or otherwise enacted by the Security Council or the General Assembly will base those actions, laws, regulations, or otherwise upon the Constitutions of each and every member Nation.

What that means is that in many cases actions, laws, regulations, or otherwise, by, or through the United Nations may be contrary to the Constitution of several Nations whereby such Nations must undertake changes to their Constitution of Laws to accommodate any acts, laws, regulations agreed to by the United Nations.
It is a simple question of “You join the club” so you must abide by its rules, etc.

2) The ITC is Institutionalised under the United Nations as a “Sovereign” with its own jurisdiction. This in fact makes the ITC very similar to any “Sovereign Nation” except that the ITC does not own land, not yet anyhow, and it has no subjects ……. I don’t like that word because it implies serfdom. Other than that it is the same as any “Sovereign Nation”

However, the Constitution of the ITC grants power over all other “Sovereign Nations” when it directly concerns the Global Debt Facility and the assets / accounts under its ownership. I have explained the reasoning behind this factor in one of my last articles.
This is all written into the International Treaties that surround the ITC.

What this means is that if any Nation, through is acts or actions, ever breach International Law, or International Treaty Law in respect of those executed Treaties, then they are legally liable and responsible, based upon the fact that they are subservient to such laws, in accordance with their signatures within such Treaties, and the fact that they executed same as the country under their own “Sovereign” Constitution as recorded within the United Nations upon that country joining the United Nations.

Therefore, if the ITC has any dispute with any country it must enact litigation against that country based upon that country’s Constitution recorded within the United Nations. For the USA, the real Constitution is recorded within the United Nations and therefore the people are ultimately responsible and the losers.

There is another issue here which is highly relevant, which is that such litigation would normally be issued under the International Court of Justice, BUT, the ITC is not a member of the United Nations, nor is it a member of the International Court of Justice, so any litigation issued by the ITC, or by any person or party against the ITC, must be issued under the jurisdiction of the ITC and not the International Court of Justice.
Confusing, Yes, but sorry but that is the real situation.

Therefore, any action against the USA, or any other country would be against the Constitutional Government of such country, which is the Constitution as recorded within the United Nations. In the case of the USA, what is recorded within the United Nations is the actual real “Sovereign” Constitution, not the Corporate Constitution.

The fact that the USA submitted the real Constitution of the USA to the United Nations means that Internationally they are recognised under the real Constitution, not the Corporate Constitution, and as such the people elected these US Congressmen/women and Senators under the real Constitution of the USA, hence the oath of office taken by all upon being elected.

In turn this means that when in Office the elected Senators and Congressmen / women agreed to the Corporate factor unknown to the people at the time, but within their own borders which does not actually breach the real “Sovereign” Constitution as recorded within the United Nations.

Therefore under the real “Sovereign” Constitution, the people are responsible for the acts, actions, debts, or otherwise incurred by their elected Government.

I am sorry if you were having difficulty in fathoming my last response, but the above is likely to confuse you even more. However, that is how Governments work, even the UK is the same. It all creates confusion for the people and as stated above, substantial costs if anyone wants to take legal action against their Government, for which most people haven’t got the sort of money required for any legal action, nor can they be bothered. It is an enormous legal minefield.

For the ITC, any legal action would be a last resort action. A more effective method for us would be, and is, to “Blacklist” any country, which we have done with several countries already; and its people from benefitting from the Global Debt Facility until such time as the people faced their responsibility and elected the right professional personal and sought changes within the Constitution to make those elected persons fully responsible and liable for their acts or actions that were detrimental, or turned out to be detrimental to their country and its people. Iceland again comes to mind here.

Let’s face facts. The people elect the Government and then allow them to do as they please without any oversight as such, and then those elected persons get the country into one God Almighty mess. This applies to successive Governments in various countries and has been more prevalent within the last 35 – 40 years. Such an “Open and Free For All Policy” is no good for any country, whereby the people of countries around the world need to wake up very quickly and get the changes implemented before all of this gets out of hand.

Again, a lengthy response for which I apologise, but I wouldn’t want you to have to spend many months, if not years, wading through Law Books to find your immediate answer.

Regards

David P. Crayford