Regarding copyright, see Legal Notice on the linked page:

http://www.paulstramer.net/2023/08/dear-jack-about-confederation.html

=====

Saturday, August 5, 2023

Dear Jack -- About Confederate States, states, States, and STATES

By Anna Von Reitz

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't accept any foreign titles, like "Mrs." or "Mrs. Riezinger" etc.? My only Proper Person is a Lawful Person, not a Legal Person, and I want no further confusion about that fact.

A "Confederate State" by definition is a "State of State" and always has been. A State of State is a business organization that is either (1) owned and operated by a State, or, (2) contracted to provide the services of a State-of-State organization.

At no time is a "Confederate State" defined as a true State with physical borders and a living population.

All "Confederate States" are "inchoate" or "incomplete" States due to their nature as business organizations set apart from the physical State.

This is why they follow the nomenclature as "State of North Carolina" for example, which literally means "State belonging to or set apart from North Carolina".

Even those Insular States like Puerto Rico that have land and soil, have not entered Statehood via the Northwest Ordinance, so their "Confederate States" -- for example, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico -- exist only on paper remain a "Possession of the United States".

If you don't believe me, you are welcome to check the "Definitions" section of the Uniform Commercial Code, older Legal Dictionaries, Banking Dictionaries that cover Commercial jargon, American Jurisprudence (Second Edition), Benedict's Admiralty Law, and even the autobiography of Jefferson Davis and the numerous quotes of Abraham Lincoln concerning the Confederation, all of which serve to clarify exactly what "a" Confederation and a "Confederate State" is, and what the Confederation created by The Articles of Confederation ---- was.

Your assertion that States of States precede States, and that States derive from states is, as usual, provably and logically wrong.

The use of the styles: "states", "States", and "STATES" is a Latin style convention.

Again, I remind you that our official language is English. But for the sake of the discussion, in Latin, the use of all small letters denotes the superior party, Upper Lower case denotes indentured servitude or public office, and the use of all capitals indicates a slave, a corporation, or a dead man's estate.

With that generalized explanation in place, you are prepared to learn why a "state" in Latin is superior to a "State" and a "State" is superior to a "STATE".
In the Latin system, the "state" refers to the national soil jurisdiction formed by the contiguous counties in each physically-defined State all joined together, while "State" refers to the international jurisdiction defined by the land underlying the soil and is defined by the physical borders of each State land mass.

Please note that because it underlies the soil, the land must be present and must be claimed prior to the soil, or the soil has nothing to rest upon.

So the national jurisdiction of the soil depends on the international jurisdiction of the land, and both are inseparably joined.

The realm of the States-of-States lies outside physicality in the jurisdiction of the air. In the Latin system, the STATE is a Confederate State.

Using English conventions, we just call it the State of North Carolina, Incorporated.

Even in the days before the so-called Civil War, the unincorporated Confederate State-of-State was called, "The State of North Carolina".

So when you say, "Confederation" you are talking about a consortium of businesses that are allied together.

And when you refer to each Confederate State, you are referring to an inchoate, non-physical business that may simply be "corporate" or which may be "incorporated" --- but in any case, is a separate business entity quite apart from any State of the Union.

So now that we finally know what we are talking about and know that "Confederate States" are not the same as "States" in nature or jurisdiction, we are ready to consider -- who or what was responsible for organizing, running, and overseeing these "Confederate States", that is, businesses providing government services for the States of the Union?

The Federal Constitution issued in 1787 to the States of America answers that question.

The original Union States (or in the Latin system, Union states) had been using the business name "States of America" since the 1770's. The 1787 Federal Constitution refers to this "States of America" as the Subcontractor receiving the service contract.

So, the original Union (not the Northern faction in the Civil War) operating as the States of America was the recipient of "The Constitution for the united States of America" and was the operator of the Federal Republic and the Union states (Latin nomenclature system) were the owners of the individual Confederate States (State of State businesses).

Contrary to the idea most people have been given, the "more perfect union" referred to in The Articles of Confederation was obviously the States of America and the original Union of the Union states (Latin nomenclature system).

The Articles of Confederation were the Articles of Incorporation for the State-of-State (Confederate) businesses belonging to the Union States, so that they, similar to the State Members of the Federation of States, could act together in their mutual self-interest: that is, their "more perfect union".

When the Confederation broke down for lack of quorum, that entire system broke down. It's been defunct for160 years.

It can be restored via the Reconstruction but that can only be accomplished by the actual States, not the States of States.

----------------------------

See this article and over 4300 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

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