What is an American National?

Visas, Nationals, and Political Status

If I have the details right, Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student on a student visa, has been arrested and scheduled for deportation; at the least. I’ve heard or seen his activities described recently as “radical” with pro-Hamas sympathies. The White House press secretary, Caroline Leavitt, stated in a press conference that she was provided with examples of the propaganda this man was distributing on campus which bore the logo or signification of Hamas, a group designated by the “United States” as a “foreign terrorist organization” as of October 8, 1997. [U.S. Department of State website]

In discussing the temporary resident “status” of such students which may be “engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activities…” (Newsmax), we should be clear about the status of those that do belong long-term in the United States of America, the people’s republic. This extensive reasoning addresses the character and particulars of “political status”. I intend to review the specific characteristics of those who have rights to be on the land, states, and country of the people’s republic, who exercise and defend that right, and those to whom privileges are extended and who are subject to have such privilege suspended or revoked.

First, these people present in our country are issued the privilege to attend school as a resident, a temporary easement of immigration status for the purpose of attending school in pursuit of an advanced degree. That’s why they are permitted, issued a permit, a student visa, to be here and remain here until that visa expires or the goal is reached. If they participate in activities which undermine the system, the nation, the country which provides those privileges, including posing any threat to our people who make that opportunity available, in the near or long term; what sense does it make to allow them to remain among our people?

And… as far as both national status and/or immigration status goes, that’s a more detailed discussion, and highly relevant to the rights of the people and those that visit our nation and country. Buckle up buttercup… the following gets a bit challenging to common perceptions of what “We the people”, our country, and our nation as the “United States of America” actually is.

What is the “United States”?

“United States” is a “federal corporation” which serves the United States of America (republic) at the receiving end of the Constitution; a compact or more simply: contract. see: 28 USC §3002 at (15)(A) specifies that “United States” means “a federal corporation”, along with UCC 9-307 (h) “The United States is located in the District of Columbia”, and 28 USC §88 “The District of Columbia constitutes one judicial district. Court shall be held at Washington.”

If you’re experiencing “cognitive dissonance”, a conflict of concepts and ideas that is difficult to balance or reconcile in your mind; that’s normal. “United States” is simply not an abbreviation for the “United States of America”; it is a separate entity. Proof for that concept is stated at the outset in the paragraph above, and follows below. The unique entity of “United States” serves the people’s republic at the opposite end of an agreement, a compact called the Constitution, agreed with the federation, a cooperating group of fifty independent nation states known as the “United States of America”. The constitution is, in simple terms, a contract with fifty states on one side agreeing for “services” from a corporate government service provider on the other.

When the Constitution was written, that relationship among two entities was clearly understood. The Constitution as it was originally penned, in my opinion, might have more clearly expressed the differences of the two, and better specified which was being addressed during the description of the constitution, yet if read carefully, that distinction can be discerned. Today, we struggle to see and comprehend that concept with any casual reading. First because people are so accustomed to thinking that the “United States” is simply an abbreviation; but it isn’t. And Second, because those who wrote the Constitution held these concepts firmly in mind. They also expected that those that followed their specifications in the Constitution would also comprehend that basic relationship.

Why aren’t these concepts taught in school with American and World History classes? Because if we the people could clearly see that our “service provider” was not doing what they were charged with, routinely exceeding their granted scope of authority thereby trespassing the people’s rights, actively participating in extortion, embezzlement, money laundering, and all manner of fraud and abuse; we the people would certainly pull back the reigns on our “servants”. I believe those benefiting from such lack of clarity routinely twist the actual facts of the matter into a convoluted misrepresentation. They may well know the limits of their charge as they refer repeatedly to “their democracy”, where 535 people elected to a “United States” Congress proceed by majority rule. If it were clear to “we the people” with the granting republic, however, we might begin to hold such grifters and grafters accountable and subject to answer to justice.

Those very trespasses may presently be revealed by the DOGE¹ appointees under authority of the Executive Branch. It might be pertinent to mention here, the Executive branch is also established by the Constitution, Article II, Section 1 in service to the United States of America, a people’s republic. The office is specified with the same article and section as “President of the United States of America”. Thankfully, here in early 2025, that realization and redress of the people’s ongoing grievance may be well underway.

It’s no wonder so many who might very well benefit from all that grift are so disturbed by such efforts. Since the validity of DOGE and authority of Elon Musk are presently in question, I’ll add that the Constitution provides at Article II, Section 2, §2, that “He [the President] shall have Power… with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” So, if you’re going to argue validity of the President’s appointees and established offices, I suggest you begin wherein such power is directly granted to the office of the President.

The Constitution

While the Constitution specifies at Article 1, Section 1, that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”, the phrase “herein granted” is key. Such congress only holds the powers granted by the document, which at Article 1, Section 8, §1 are specifically curtailed (limited).

Article 1, Section 8, §1 begins “The Congress shall have the Power… and at Section 8, §17 continues with, “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may… become the Seat of the Government of the United States…” (not the United States of America). You might, over two-hundred and sixty years of evolved expression in English, read that as, “legislation exclusive to the district”. I suggest we ought to read it as such.

Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8, §18 continues to specify the “foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States…” Again, the powers specified and vested to the “United States”, which is in service of the “United States of America”. If you look and are sensitive to the distinction, it is there to be found. With that distinction and specification, Section 8 ends… Significant? Maybe, maybe not… interesting; most certainly. I invite you to reason it in your own mind. Are you a self-governing American or not? If so, maybe you should review these concepts now and then.

That which is “legal” only applies to the jurisdiction (the right to assert authority) for which that statute, code, or ordinance was established. To further specify:

legal: that which men express on paper, applicable only within relative jurisdiction, often applied in error without jurisdiction (outside the granted authority). (4) Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof [Black’s Law, 2 nd Ed.] “legality”: 1. As implied warranty… statutes of a particular jurisdiction are the basis for any act, agreement, or contract in that jurisdiction. 2. As a legal principle, no crime exists if an action is not a crime in that specific jurisdiction. [Black’s Law, 2nd Ed.]

When legislation, the expression of policy (hence politics) is enacted “within relative or related jurisdiction”, is this not applicable to the limited “ten miles square” for the Congress of the “United States”?

This is my contention with those presently professing that “federal law” is the “law of the land”. No, the constitution is considered the law of the land in that it supersedes anything enacted by the “government service providers”, our “public servants”, which operate at the other end of that constitutional compact. Congress may legislate and produce statutes, codes, and ordinances, but those neither apply beyond it’s jurisdiction of “ten miles square” nor it’s other assigned responsibilities, which include:

• jurisdiction of the “United States”, limited to “ten miles square”
  • for which many related district responsibilities are enumerated
• commerce “with foreign Nations”, “among the several States”, and “Indian Tribes” (Article 1, Section 8, 3)
• the value of coin, foreign coin, and “Standard of Weights and Measures”
• concerns for emoluments (values offered) by foreign states to “officers”
• agreements or compacts with foreign states
• adjudication of matters which might include foreign states

Much of this is consideration of a foreign nature; our treaties, foreign possessions, and territories (if memory serves). Nor does any legislation it issues supersede the compact (constitution) by which Congress exists and which specifies and limits the scope of authority of the government service corporation “United States”. That is why the Constitution is the law of the land. It is in effect a service contract which expresses and limits authority extended to the contractor.

For example, if you were to walk into a Walmart and when approached by a manager, they say to you, “Go home and get your blue Walmart vest, and don’t come back until you’re wearing it.” Your response is likely, “Uh… I don’t work here…” The manager has no authority to issue you mandates or penalties for not following rules established for the store, the corporation, or any authority he or she believes they wield. They might believe they bear authority to assert such regulation, but that isn’t the fact of the matter. That’s called “color of law”. It looks like law, sounds like law, stinks like law, but it is applied without jurisdiction, without valid authority. That is an ultra simple explanation of jurisdiction; the right to assert authority.

He or she is exceeding their scope of authority. That authority, which might be valid, simply does not include “you”. If they persist, beyond notice and opportunity to correct their actions, that manager does so trespassing your rights as the store is “open to the public”. Insistence that you follow the manager’s rules or reference exposes them to civil liability including charges of discrimination and other trespass and/or damage. Very often, that’s where public service stores and corporations placed their corporation during the COVID-19 events. Some people pressed those charges; others simply didn’t know how to do so.

That District is still specified with the United States Code as “one judicial District” (28 USC §88) which “…is located in the District of Columbia” (the “ten miles square”).

The United States of America is specified with the 1787 Constitution in the Preamble, that such establishes “…this Constitution for the United States of America.” Throughout the Constitution the distinction is made for “United States” (a government service corporation) and “United States of America” (the people’s republic). We ought to remember and recognize that the “United States” serves the people’s republic at the opposite end of a compact with the fifty states as federation of States, similar to a service contract. A similar compact exists among the States (government) and the people on the state (inhabitants on a territory).

Today, many tend to see these, United States and United States of America, as synonymous; but these are not the same thing. One is the people’s republic, where the people hold all the authority. The other performs government services under a compact (contract) with a specified and limited scope of authority. Once we comprehend and have that relationship firmly fixed in our mind, we ought to review several concepts…

The Concept of Political Status

To hold a proper concept of political status, or standing in relation to established policy, we must be familiar with the lawful and legal definitions of the words used to describe these conditions of status.

The people congregate to a local region, and establish culture and mores, “morally binding customs of a particular group” (Merriam-Webster). I’ll guarantee the mores for the Hell’s Angels motorcycle association vary drastically from the Mormons who ventured West to settle Utah; each group holding vastly differing values. For the United States of America, those groups are our cities, towns, counties, States, and even federal government; different people, different perspectives, different values. As people congregate and the population grows into a society, you eventually end up with one of everything; the good, the bad, and the ugly. When the “bad” begin to subvert the peace, trespassing rights and damaging private property, the people assemble to discuss “policy”;

• When this specific thing happens, how is our society going to respond?
  • The answer for “how we shall respond” establishes policy.
• What are the descriptions for one’s falling under authority of such statute?
• How shall we adjudicate (weigh facts) that those involved may be in violation?
• and If convicted, what are the penalties for such behavior?

Such endeavor is the work of establishing “policies” which should be based on solid proven principles accepted by the people as “law”. Policies, the statutes, codes, and ordinances established for a society, however, are NOT law… these are evidence of law; evidence of the founding principles behind the the code. For example, the “LAW” given to Moses in Genesis included “thou shalt not steal”. Though, when applied in creating banking regulations enacted and executed on behalf of the people, the specifics of “stealing” within the activity of banking in contrast to how “stealing” might be described in the “motor vehicle” section differ quite a bit. That’s the difference between “law” and the “statutes, code, and ordinances” that stem from the broad overarching principle of “LAW”.

Once policy is established, it falls to the executive branch to enforce these regulations as “policy enforcement”, usually by means of a “police” agency. Considering that policy is enacted for a specific and limited jurisdiction, the authority for the police to assert any granted authority is worthy of serious consideration. Upon whom or “what” are policy enforcement agents intent to apply such authority, and, are these officers sufficiently trained and fully aware of the limits of the authority with which they are entrusted?

Have a look at the conditions and requirements for issuing a warrant on your state. These run in agreement with Amendment IV which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” and states “no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation”. Review the requirements for “probable cause”, likely in the same statute section. An interesting discussion as the jurisdiction wherein such statutes, codes, and ordinances are being enforced also bears specified limits. Exceeding those limits exposes otherwise well-intended public servants, who choose to serve their community and fellow Americans, exposed to civil liability (see 42 USC 1983) or even criminal charges if the people’s rights are trespassed, suspended under detention, or private property is damaged as “color of law” violations. However, we’ll leave the extended details of that discussion for another time.

The United States of America is a republic, not because we send representatives to speak for us (another word that begins with “r-e-p”), but because we reference and review principles of law to determine the course of our own government. We the people ought to speak for ourselves because our “United States Representatives” serve another purpose for another jurisdiction which should not overlap with the policies and law established by the people. We are self-governing and should be guiding our public servants, rather than subject to the same codes which are established in that jurisdiction in order to limit or “govern”, them.

“Statutes, codes, and ordinance” are the specification to recognize trespass and procedure for trespass of law for any particular jurisdiction. Determining “policy” is the activity of “politics”. This is why the people should assemble; to establish policies. And, as suggested earlier with a review of “legal” and “legality”, policies only exist or are enforceable within the jurisdiction for which these are enacted. That is why I suggest federal law, statutes, codes, and ordinances established by the federal government service corporation “United States” is not of itself “law of the land”; its authority is related to, expressed by, and limited by the law of the land known as the Constitution.

Statute, code, and ordinance is often mistakenly referred to generally as “law”. It is our relationship to the jurisdiction under which such “codes” are established that specify our chosen political status. Am I subject to that jurisdiction or am I not?

If we cannot conceptualize the meaning of the words describing status in the codes, we fall prey to obfuscation or confusion of the facts by which others abuse our rights because we don’t know, and cannot express, how and where we stand.

If “we don’t know and cannot express where we stand”, we cannot defend ourselves. We might then allow common perception to obscure lawful application, which is precisely why some seek to exploit and subject American Nationals as original jurisdiction Americans to “United States” jurisdiction as “fellow employees”. Why? Because there is money in such deception and fraud; and lots of it. But “we the people” are not meant to be “U.S. Citizens” as fellow employees. We the people are the self-governing authorities.

So, when I hear commentators and content providers describe the condition of residents, student visa holders, and foreign visitors as “not citizens”, well, neither are most Americans! We aren’t servants subject to the government service provider “United States” as are citizens who render service to a higher authority. “We the people” are the authority!

citizen: 26 CFR 1.1-1(c): …Every person born or naturalized in the “United States” and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties. [Black’s Law, 2nd Ed.] see also “civitas” for: “…Citizenship; one of the three status, conditions, or qualifications of persons.” (see: 28 USC §3002(15) for “United States”)

Members, persons, individuals, and citizens, all incorporate constructs, entities which are not men and living souls, have no “rights” which are un-a-lien-able. The incorporate persons, or “personae”, an office, title, role, or post, quite literally a desk, only have privileges which can be revoked or suspended. Also, a free people, bear no duties to the State (Hale v. Henkel²) At the open of this reasoning, Mahmoud Khalil, the man in question is a “foreign national” (title, owing allegiance to some State) who is here as a “student” (role), and might be acting as an insurgent or provocateur (post) for a sponsoring organization; a notion yet to be proven. The privileges extended to the student (role) as a courtesy are presently suspended and subject to revocation; whereby the man acting as “student” is likely to be simply deported or charged with crimes.

“We the people”, authorize the States to compact and establish a federal government by which the jurisdiction of the “United States” exists. Are we the people, the highest self-governing authority, sovereign people, then to be subject to the jurisdiction which we grant and establish? Does the maid or gardener get to dictate policy to the homeowner? No… we are only subject to our Creator, our fellow man if and when a man or woman is trespassed, and the principles we choose to guide our society. The “United States” is not our society; it’s a government services corporation. Those which serve there as representative, elected officer, administrator, or employee are “citizens”; public servants.

member: “any of the persons constituting a partnership, association, corporation, guild, etc.”; one portion of an incorporate body; and [2] “one of the individuals composing a group”, also [4b] “one of the propositions of a syllogism”, and [4c] “one of the elements of a set or class” [Merriam-Webster]

Of course that also begs the question of “what is the proper definition for individual?”

individual: as included with other strictly corporate terms with 26 USC §7701, relates liability as an “incorporeal” entity, a single unit or division of an incorporated body of fictitious entities (association and member), and is no “man” which can stand for any matter; “As a noun… denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person [common, man and living soul] as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. See Bank of U. S. v. State, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 400; State v. Bell Telephone Co.. 30 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am. Rep. 583; Pennsylvania it. Co. v. Canal Com’rs, 21 Pa. 20. As an adjective, “individual” means pertaining or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto. [Black’s Law, 2nd Ed.] In matters of law, common usage yields to specific “legal” and lawful definitions. See also: 5 USC §552a: Definitions (2) “the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” and 26 CFR §31.3121(d)-1 – Who are employees; (which describe “individuals” throughout as “employees” or sub-units of corporate organizations.)

Can you see how the definitive portion “an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence“, in light of the definition for residence as “a temporary assignment” confuses the issue of a visitor to our nation by means of a student visa? More appropriately, the student might be a “national” owing allegiance” to a foreign state.

Once you comprehend the definition for “residence”, the concept of “permanent residence” is either an oxymoron (conflicting terms) uttered by one less than informed, or an idea better expressed as “a class admitted temporarily which is never to be upgraded to inhabitant“; habitation, thereafter prohibited. As such is stated, rather unclear.

As you can see, references in statute, code, and ordinance are littered with common terms with which people believe they are familiar. But when standing for matters at law, the people are often held responsible for the legal definitions and most have no idea such bait and switch is coming their way.

person: and “persons” herein represents any corporate fiction as “no living being and no soul” which has no standing in any matter. Formally “person” indicates an office, title, role, or post with a granted “scope of authority” (jurisdiction) and area of responsibility (venue); see: ARS 13-105 (30), Az. UCC ARS 47-1201(27) “…any other legal or commercial entity“, 1 USC §1 without mention of “men or women”, 26 USC §7343, 42 USC §1791(b)(11), UCC §1-201(27), definition for “United States” within 50 USC §4302, and 26 USC §7701(a)(1): “The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation. United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941); “While the United States is a juristic person in the sense that it can sue upon its contracts or in vindication of its property rights, the term “person” does not include the sovereign in common usage nor, ordinarily, when employed in statutes.” P. 312 U. S. 604. See also: 15 USC §7: “Person” or “persons”: “…shall be deemed to include corporations and associations…” Authorized by statute makes a thing “legal“, or incorporate; a fictional entity and matter on paper and not necessarily “lawful” on principle. (see also 26 USC §6331: specifically describing government agents and employees)

resident: one who is present temporarily for a specified purpose; “resident” and “inhabitant” are distinguishable in meaning. The word “inhabitant” implies a more fixed and permanent abode than does “resident;” and a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges (rights) or subject to [free from] all the duties of the resident [as is an inhabitant].” [Black’s Law, 2nd Ed., corrected-dp] Residents of the “United States” [see: 26 USC §7701(a)(9) and (10) and 26 CFR § 301.7701(b)-1 – Resident alien.. at (b): “an individual who has been lawfully granted the privilege of residing permanently in the United States …deemed to continue unless it is rescinded or …abandoned.” (Residents are assigned to the District of Columbia federal area by presumption and default. -dp) [“” per 26 CFR 1.1-1(c)]

Are you present in the District of Columbia, in service to the “United States” corporation temporarily to provide and produce some service? No? Then how are you a “resident”? Were you native to (“born” on) the ten miles square District among “United States” corporate employees? Then how are you, in contrast to the definition, a “citizen“? Members, individuals, residents, and persons are “things”, incorporate “office, title, role, or post” by which their actions are authorized or recognized. “Men”, “women”, and the “people” aren’t things… neither “instrumentalities” (property) of the STATE. Though if you dig deep enough in the statute, code, and ordinance of the “United States”, that’s precisely what some of their legislated reasoning suggests.

national: recognized in United States Code at 8 USC 1101, as (21) one who owes “permanent allegiance to a state” and (23) “…conferring of nationality of a state… by any means whatsoever.” By that definition “state national” is acceptable general parlance.

The people’s State (government) is the state (territory) on which they were native; Ohio, in my case. I am an “Ohioan”, made mostly of the stuff grown on Ohio or the surrounding region that my mother ate in the nine gestative months prior to my “nativity”. By that more specific description “Ohio National” ought to be acceptable parlance with the U.S. State Department and Arizona Secretary of State (where I make my home).

Prior to the American Civil War (1860), the people identified themselves as “Delewaran”, “Virginian”, “New Yorker”, etc. They were inhabitants of a confederate (cooperating) group of States first and were “Americans” second. Most Americans then are generally “American Nationals” rather than “U.S. Citizens” as if acting as citizens, servants, or subjects of the United States corporation. More specifically I am presently an “Ohioan” or “Ohio National” on “arizona” (territory), in my case. Each State of the union is a “nation-state“, which is why each is privileged to establish its own constitution (compact with the people) and statutes (policies). Such admission or election that we are “U.S. Citizen” renders or suggests the people are “fellow employees” and subject to the same limits, rules, jurisdiction, and penalties of our “service providers”, which shouldn’t be.

Conversely, if a man or woman accepts an appointment or is elected to an office with the “United States” federal activity, 8 USC 1101 at section (22) applies and the status description “national of the United States” is appropriate. I believe this reflects acceptance of the post and an oath sworn to uphold the constitution of the “United States” and intent to perform in such post to the best of one’s ability. At (21) a “national” is one owing permanent allegiance to a state. In such instance, the “United States”, because the post is in service to the government service contractor.

I question at present whether the oath to “uphold the constitution of the United States” is appropriate as contractor employee, because the “United States” is not a “state”, but a “federal corporation” contracted for services; see: 28 USC §3002 at (15)(A). Perhaps an oath to uphold the constitution for the “United States of America” might be more appropriate with current contract activity, or better suited for attendees of the people on land and soil.

Now would be a good time to re-read Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment and see just how far off base those wielding pens in the District of Columbia have come to err.

Amendment 14, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It reads a bit different when you know what “persons”, “jurisdiction”, “citizens”, “residents”, “privileges”, and “laws” actually are in contrast to “men”, “women”, the “people”, and “statutes”. Also the people’s “rights”, which are un-a-lien-able; as these cannot be liened, leveraged, suspended, nor separated from men and women. From such obfuscation or outright misrepresentation we are lead to believe that one’s status as “citizen”, a servant, property interest, or subject, ought to be accepted as a “good thing”.

non-resident alien: 26 USC 7701: Definitions at (b)(1)(B): “An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States.”

For this discussion, most Americans are “non-resident” as they are not “temporarily” assigned nor working under “United States” corporate jurisdiction as “resident”; deemed “to continue unless it is rescinded or …abandoned” (26 CFR § 301.7701(b)-1(b)). And the people are naturally “alien” to the jurisdiction they have granted the authority to create, by which many of these matters are discussed, and where most of these events take place. We the people are not “resident” to the District of Columbia (ten miles square) or any other “federal area“, nor subject to the jurisdiction of the “United States”. The people are “non-resident alien” to those discussions, determinations, and most if not all of those events.

Of interest, it is also specified with Title 26, the “tax code”, that “non-resident aliens” are exempt as not “subject to” nor “liable for” income tax; 26 USC §3401 describing (a) “remuneration³… for services performed by an “employee” for his “employer”; specifically excluding (a)(6) “non-resident alien”. Also an interesting discussion certainly worthy its own detailed reasoning. Recently penned, you can review that reasoning with “IRS: A Case for Fraud“. Notably, specific Title 26 definitions for “employer” and “employee” come into play as related directly to the federal contractor.

We are meant to be a free people; to be free however, your rights of freedom must be claimed and then defended when threatened. To do so, I believe you must know the concepts expressed with this reasoning. My hope is that it serves you well to that end.

intended for and addressing any which considers themselves a “Patriotic American” here in the third decade of the twenty-first Century,
March 11, 2025

Special Note: If you got this far in reasoning with me, or even simply reading through that tangled bowl of spaghetti, I commend you. It’s been several years of reading, research, and reasoning that has lead me to be able to express these concepts, even with that feeble amount of organization. Well done, you…

But…

Here is the presently 37-Trillion-Dollar⁴ Question: To what organization, association, or sovereign power was the compact or contract issued to fulfill the duties of the “United States” corporation? An entity authorized at Article I, Section 8: §2 “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States“; (in contrast to the United States of America), whereby the people, included as “fellow-employees” under the classification “U.S. Citizen” are responsible for thirty-seven trillion dollars of “United States” corporation debt?

To what entity was the contract issued ? and…

What entity is actually responsible for 37 Trillion dollars of debt?

…because the “United States” is not “We the People”.

1. DOGE: Department of Government Efficiency; at https://www.doge.gov/ ↩︎
2. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 431, @ 74; “…entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract [or not to contract] is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State… or to open his doors to an investigation.” ref: Amendment IV ↩︎
3. “remunerate” is “to pay an equivalent to for a service, loss, or expense” [Merriam-Webster], upon which is no profit, but an equal exchange… therefore, no “IRS” business. ↩︎
4. U.S. Debt Clock at https://www.usdebtclock.org/ ↩︎